Episode Synopsis:

The church in Rome was predominately Gentile–made up of recent converts from Greco-Roman paganism to Christianity. Such Gentiles knew little if anything about the Old Testament, nor its central figures, Abraham, Moses, and David. They knew that Jewish Christians cared about dietary restrictions, as well as circumcision–a surgical procedure which seemed bizarre to former Gentile pagans. They knew the Jews revered the law of Moses–which they claimed to be the very commandments from God. Gentiles ate things Jews did not. They touched things Jews regarded as unclean. As new Christians, Gentiles were learning about the evils of idolatry and the importance of rejecting the libertine sexual ethics and practices of Roman life in favor of a biblical sexuality. But they were also learning about Moses, Abraham, the law, and the covenants God made with Abraham and Moses.

Paul has been clear in the opening chapter of his letter to Rome. “You Gentiles may not have known who Moses was, nor why the commandments God gave to Israel through him at Mount Sinai were so important, but you do know what is right and what is wrong because God has made it plain to you through the created order, which, until coming to faith in Jesus, you tried to suppress in unrighteousness. You may claim ignorance, but you knew deep down inside that the things you were doing lead to death.”

But Paul is not finished. Even as he exposes Gentile godlessness and the futility of exchanging the truth of God for pagan nonsense, you can almost hear the Jewish Christians in Rome cheering Paul on. Eyewitnesses of bad Gentile behavior and victims of Gentile oppression, Jewish converts, of course, were thrilled to hear Paul “give it to them good.” “About time someone called out the Gentiles for their sinful and immoral practices.”

But as the second chapter of Romans unfolds, Paul shifts gears and raises the uncomfortable reality of Jewish hypocrisy. “OK, you Jews who criticize the Gentiles, do you do the same things they do?” “How can you judge the Gentiles when you are no better.” The truth is, God is going to judge all people according to their works–Jew and Gentile. The blessing/curse principle will apply to all humanity. Those who do good will receive God’s blessing, while those who do not keep God’s commands will face him on the day of judgment. Yes, Paul has good news to proclaim, but there can be no good news until we realize that we are sinful, law-breakers, and deserving of God’s wrath whether we be Jew or Gentile.

Show Notes:

Several airplanes interrupted the recording session, but the real issue was the heat (again). My neighbor’s AC was running most of the time, and I was able to remove the rattle and hum. I tried to record in the morning, but it was still hot and muggy.

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

Clark: Turretin on merit in the covenant of works

Irons: Kline on Objections to the Covenant of Works

Kline on Works and Grace

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegret

The following is the edited text of my WSC chapel lecture on the Nicene Creed for their series on the Creed from the Fall of 2025

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

My purpose in this post is to address that section of the Creed which speaks to the attributes of the church: “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Reformed Christians usually emphasize the marks of the church (preaching of the gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, church discipline, and for some, prayer) before discussing the attributes of the church. When confessing the Nicene Creed the matter of the attributes or characteristics of the church moves to the fore. What are those attributes which must be confessed as necessary in order for the marks of a true church to be present?

There are four classical attributes of the church found in the Creed and embraced in different forms/ways across various Christian traditions: These attributes are 1). Unity, 2). Holiness, 3). Catholicity, and 4). Apostolicity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the Reformation churches all confess these same attributes but understand them in fundamentally different ways. There may be less catholicity here than elsewhere. I will cite from several Reformed writers and our confessions to make these differences apparent.

Several Reformed theologians have pointed out the classical attributes confessed in the Creed are not merely descriptive, they are also an exhortation. These are the ideal–the aspirational goal for which the church must strive. When seen in this light, these attributes are both a gift and a mandate. There is an eschatological dimension as well–these attributes tell us what the church is, what it should be, but they direct us ahead to that day when they will all be realized in perfection when the Lord Jesus returns.[1]

Briefly, I will go through the four attributes from this line in the Creed and then wrap up with a look at 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, where all four attributes are explicitly mentioned by Paul.

We Confess that the Church Is “One”

We begin with our confession that the church is “one.” It will come as no surprise that Rome anchors unity in the papacy. Ubi papa ibi ecclesia – “Where the Pope is, there is the church.” And we can add “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[2] In Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, he contends that “the Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[3]

The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist. It is not bishops which hold the church together, leading Kallistos Ware to ask, so “what then holds the Church together? [The] Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments. . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of [Christ’s] flock.”[4]

In contrast, the Reformed depart from both Rome and the EOC in terms of how we understand the attributes of Christ’s church. When it comes to unity, we speak in terms of an invisible and a visible church. Invisibly, Christians enjoy a common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love. God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly (in part, but not exclusively, through external organization). Berkhof notes, the Reformers “did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[5]

The Belgic Confession, article 27, speaks of “one single catholic or universal church” and concludes by affirming Christ’s church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”

According to Herman Bavinck,

This unity, though primarily spiritual in character, nevertheless exists objectively and really, and it does not remain completely invisible. It manifests itself outwardly—albeit in a very imperfect way—and at least to some degree comes to light in that which all Christian churches have in common. No Christianity exists above or beneath religious differences, but there is indeed a Christianity present amid religious differences . . . . That which unites all true Christians is always more than that which separates them.[6]

We might say that unity of organization, of some sort, is one of the things we strive for, but the elements of institutional unity do not depend upon a single, worldwide ecclesiastical structure centered in the Papacy–a standard Roman polemic.

Second, We Confess that the Church Is “Holy”

The Reformed seek to understand the church’s holiness in an objective sense. According to Paul, we are saints (through reception of the saving merits of Christ received though faith) and identified as such in Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; and Colossians 1:2. In addition, we are called to be saints in Romans 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 1:2. This holiness is grounded in an objective Trinitarian reality: The Father who calls us is holy (1 Peter 1:15). Christ’s atonement on our behalf makes us holy and cleanses us (Ephesians 5:25-27). According to the author of Hebrews God has purified the heavenly temple for us (Hebrews 9:15-28). Furthermore, the Spirit who indwells us is holy (1 Corinthians 6:19).

While Rome and perhaps the East has some claim to an outward unity that the Reformed do not have, they certainly have nothing of the sort when it comes to holiness. The Roman Catholic Church may be externally the Roman Catholic church, but it’s not externally the holy catholic church.

Christ’s church is called to holiness. In 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Paul writes

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

Paul uses an indicative and an imperative here. We are the temple of the living God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19) and God makes his dwelling among us. Therefore we should be separate from unbelievers, touching no unclean thing. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”

Again, Bavinck’s summation is helpful.

Inasmuch as the Reformation again made known the church as the communion of the saints, it looked for holiness not first of all in the supernatural character of the salvific institution, but in the spiritual renewal of the members of the church. The church is holy because it is a communion of saints . . . . . And believers are called saints, first of all, because they are objectively counted as saints in Christ by virtue of God’s imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ,” and as Bavinck goes on to add, second because of the renewed lives of the saints.[7]

Michael Horton makes an important big-picture observation:

In both Roman Catholic and free-church ecclesiologies . . . . the church’s visible holiness is inherent, although for the former it flows from the one to the many and for the latter from the many to the one . . . . In both paradigms . . . the means of grace employed . . . are oriented first of all toward an infused, inherent, and inward holiness . . . . Covenant theology has taken a different route than either of these paradigms. Regardless of the personal holiness of its members, the church . . . is holy because it is the field of divine activity, in which the wheat is growing up into the likeness of its firstfruits, even though weeds are sown among the wheat.[8]

Third, We Confess That the Church is “Catholic”

This is affirmed in the Reformed Confessions as follows:

Belgic Confession, Article 27 comments on catholicity at some length:

It is “one single catholic or universal church.” “This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end.” “This holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small . . . . This holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain persons. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world . . .”

Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 54 refers to catholicity when it speaks of the church gathered “out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to its end.”

Westminster Confession of Faith 25.1 says . . .

“the catholic or universal church” that is “invisible” “consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one . . .” But Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2 adds that the visible church “is also catholic or universal under the gospel.” It is “not confined to one nation” but “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children . . .”

We can summarize the view of the Reformed confessions as follows. Christ’s church extends throughout time, it reaches all of humanity (under the new covenant), and therefore is not limited to one time, place, nation, or people. Louis Berkhof notes that Protestants “apply this attribute primarily to the invisible Church, which can be called catholic in a far truer sense than any one of the existing organizations . . . . The invisible Church is primarily the real catholic Church, because she includes all believers on earth at any particular time, no one excepted.”[9]

Fourth, We Confess That the Church is Apostolic

The two key biblical texts making this exact point are: Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”

and Ephesians 2:19–20

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

Both of these texts indicate that the apostles are foundational to the church, but not a continuing office. In Matthew 16:18-19, the reference to building on a rock is obviously pointing to the need for a foundation, especially in light of Matthew 7:24-27 (the house built upon the rock). Nothing is said about the apostles as anything other than a foundation. In Ephesians 2:19-20, Paul writes: The church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (who function as New Testament prophets—3:5). Christ himself is cornerstone, and he has no successors.

But it is evident that the church today isn’t apostolic in the following ways:

• 1) Apostles or their successors are not still present

• 2) Our churches do not have fellowship with churches the apostles planted, since we know that these early churches could fall away (Revelation 2:5; 3:16)

• 3) The church must be apostolic because it is built upon the foundation the apostles laid

So, what then is the foundation upon which we still must rest? The remarkable thing about the apostles in the New Testament is that they speak the authoritative word of God which must be believed and obeyed. The apostolic foundation isn’t about persons or institutions, but teaching as seen in the following four ways.

• 1) The apostles speak the word of Christ

• 2) In Romans 2:16, Paul speaks of “my gospel”

• 3) In 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, he says “not I, but the Lord…I, not the Lord,” which indicates that the word Paul spoke was equally authoritative as words spoken by Christ while on earth

• 4) In 2 Corinthians 13:3 the Corinthians sought proof that Christ was speaking through Paul

The conclusion: the church is apostolic because it preached the apostolic gospel revealed by Jesus to his disciples who founded his church.

Finally, how does 1 Corinthians 1:1-2 give biblical foundation to the four attributes of the church we confess in the Nicene Creed? This is a great text from which to preach about the four attributes.

Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.

The biblical basis for these attributes is set out in a single text. Unity: Paul speaks of the “church of God” in Corinth, who are called together with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Holiness: Paul says they are the sanctified but also called to be holy (status and aspiration?). Catholicity: He adds that they are called together with all those who in every place call on the name of Christ, and Apostolicity: they’re authoritatively addressed by Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle.

Conclusion

In an age of great conflict over competeing religious claims perhaps it is good to remind ourselves of why the Nicene Creed is so important to confess. Shortly after its promulgation, Athanasius stated that “whoever wishes to understand the Scriptures must first confess the faith which the Church has received from the Apostles and guarded through the ages — the faith confessed at Nicaea.”[10] C. S. Lewis is quoted as saying, “We are to make of ourselves a society of the Nicene Creed — [people] who believe that Christ is God, and that through Him all things were made.”

_____________________________

[1] Heyns, The Church, 119.

[2] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.285, 323.

[3] Ratzinger, Called to Communion, 72.

[4] Ware, The Orthodox Church, 238-39.

[5] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 573.

[6] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.321.

[7] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.321.

[8] Horton, People and Place, 194-95.

[9] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 575.

[10] Athansius, De Synodis (On the Councils), chapter 54

In 2 Corinthians 9, Paul discusses the proper motives behind Christian charity.  He does away with the tithe and reminds his readers that Christians are to give as much as they can–if they can do so freely and joyfully.  He tells the Corinthians that Christians do not “give to get”–no prosperity gospel here.  Rather they are to give what they can when there is a genuine need.  The model for such giving is God’s grace as manifest in the cross of Jesus Christ, the proof that God loves us and cares for us.  Christian giving does not appease an angry god (as the pagans taught), it does not ensure that we’ll prosper financially or regain health (as the prosperity gospelers claim), and giving is always to be done simply because it is good to give–especially to those in need.  While there is a spiritual blessing for the cheerful giver, the Christian offering is but an act of gratitude in response to the inexpressible gift God has given to us in the person of his son. 

To listen to the the Blessed Hope discussion of this from 2 Corinthians 9, here’s the link: “The Inexpressible Gift” Season Four/Episode 12 (2 Corinthians 9:1-15)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Updates:

• Note the new musings photo—nowhere else does the muse come upon me as when I am here—Lake Mary in Mammoth

• Don’t forget the Blessed Hope Podcast series on Romans is well underway. Thanks for all the great feedback! Such a wonderful and powerful book

• I am also going through the Epistles of John in the blog

Thinking Out Loud:

• Goodbye Meghan and Harry—don’t let the door hit you on the way out

• The City Council of McKinney, Texas (where my son and his family now live), heard five hours of pleas from 120 citizens not to approve a 32,000 sq.ft. Mosque. The council voted 7-0 to approve the site plan. Of course, their minds were already made up and like city councils everywhere, they went through the ritual of hearing citizen complaints, feigning interest while trying not to yawn, but knowing all along what they were going to do before the meeting even got under way. The solution when city councils do this—recall the lot of them

• The WNBA just keeps hitting new lows. Caitlin Clark is the best female basketball player I have seen (perhaps Cheryl Miller excepted). Sophie Cunningham is the paradigm “all-American” girl. Because of the two of them, the WNBA has drawn a bunch of new fans, sold a ton of merch, has new media contracts, and is on the verge of sound financial footing for the first time in the league’s history. But the league’s LGBTQ crowd, along with the league’s refs and coaches, treat Clark and Cunningham like they are in the UFC. These two women—the victims of pure jealousy, racism, and spite—deserve much, much better

• Why does President Trump feel compelled to issue an executive order to scrap electromagnetic catapults on aircraft carriers in favor of the old steam catapults? He knows nothing whatsoever about the technology and to convert an under construction carrier from electromagnetic catapults back to steam, will cost billions and delay construction by years. Good grief

• I used to hear a garage band or two occasionally playing Saturday afternoons in the neighborhood. Not so much any more. My guess is they’ve moved from the garage to playing as “worship bands” in local churches. This way they get to practice once a week before an appreciative audience

• Alexis de Tocqueville once mused in his Recollections, “a dwarf on the summit of a great wave is able to scale a high cliff which a giant placed on dry ground at the base would not be able to climb.” The quote was a reference to Napoleon III (Louis-Napoléon), but it certainly applies to a number of contemporary politicians, podcasters, and social media mavens

• The famous Roman orator Seneca described how in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was common to drown or discard unwanted babies (infanticide). Oh wait, he was speaking of the Romans, not a progressive American governor (Maura Healy) who signed a law last week allowing abortion up to the moment of birth

• I got a kick out of the Abounding Grace Radio’s AI picture of me—especially on an episode devoted to the Antichrist. Besides, I would never wear that tie with that shirt

• I forgot to complain about it in the last musings, but endnotes are a tool of the devil and part of his plot to deceive the world by keeping people in darkness

Recently Read:

I recently re-read Peter Brown’s outstanding biography of Augustine. I first read it in seminary—it was assigned by Bob Godfrey for his Ancient Church course. I hurried through it—like seminary students often do when they have a heavy reading load that semester. But I determined that at some point, I needed to go back and carefully read it again. That time finally came—some forty years later—and it was well worth digging it out and tackling it anew. This is truly a great work of biography with great footnotes—see my rant above!

As an aside, the printed sales price on the back of my copy is $5.95, but I bought it at the famed Evangelical Bible Bookstore in San Diego, owned and operated by John and Sandra Cully, where it was marked down to $4.00! Quite a bargain, even then. It is worth noting that John Cully sold solid Reformed literature to a legion of Reformed folk. The store closed in January of 2011. That was the end of an era—a family owned and operated Christian bookstore which sold Reformed books and Bibles.

The strength of Brown’s bio of Augustine (354 CE-430 CE) is his skill in setting the cultural and historical context for Augustine’s life and work. When I read this book previously, about all I knew was that Augustine was a North African and an important figure in church history. Having matured in my thinking and knowledge of the Roman empire in the decades since, Brown offers much information with which I was now far more familiar and much better able to process. No real surprises as to content—just the realization that I should have re-read this biography much sooner in my career.

I won’t recount the details of Augustine’s life, since Brown does this quite well. He does so in sufficient detail to be informative and still keep the reader’s interest. As the saying goes, he knows when to quit drilling. Brown is a highly regarded historian and writer—a factual story teller, if you will. He begins by explaining the cultural context and church life in Thagaste—Augustine’s hometown in Numidia (now Algeria). Augustine’s family were probably Berbers. The influence of Augustine’s mother, Monica, is well known, but his father, Patricus, was a pagan and converted to Christianity on his death bed. Augustine had a brother (Navigius) and sister as well. He kept an unnamed concubine for nearly 20 years and she had a son by him (Adeodatus). I recall thinking at the time when I first read Brown’s book, that the great saint was a sort of philanderer—given Augustine’s subsequent reflections upon celibacy, sex, and the nature of lust. But Brown explained that keeping a concubine was a common practice, nothing scandalous, and was treated as a marriage—like a common law wife today.

Brown recounts Augustine’s journey from the backwater of Thagaste (a semi-rural land of olive groves), to the big city, Carthage. Then, soon after Augustine moved to an even bigger city across the Mediterranean (Milan), and eventually to the biggest city of all, Rome. Augustine’s geographical journey mirrors his intellectual pilgrimage. First, was Augustine’s youth—a rambunctious lad who dared to steal the neighbor’s pears, to growing up in the North African backwater amidst nominal Christianity. Then came his Manichean period, during which Augustine became a surprise convert and leading defender and spokesman of the movement. When hitting the road to take his rhetorical skills to Milan, Augustine encountered the famous Ambrose, realized the bankruptcy of Manichean claims, and converted to Christianity—the famous tolle lege story recounted in his Confessions. Augustine became a popular and respected preacher and a prolific author, addressing all of the major controversies of his day—from the Trinity, to the errors of the Manichees, to matters of sin and grace, to ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the church’s relationship to civil society (his renowned City of God). Upon leaving Rome and embracing a celibate life, Augustine (who saw himself as an “African” not a Roman) returned to North Africa as a bishop of Hippo, an ancient Phoenician seaport and then an important Roman colony, just north of Carthage.

Brown’s treatment of the Donatist controversy in North Africa explains how and why the controversy arose—the issue being the Donatist insistence upon the absolute fidelity of church officers and members, coupled with a rejection of “Catholic” Christianity—thought to be corrupt, too closely aligned with pagan Rome,and too prone to compromise on the naming of bishops. If the clergy were not above sin, then their sacraments and prayers were seen to be invalid. The issue was a particularly North African one which Brown carefully details. Donatism quickly declined once the Vandals invaded Numidia, and all Christians subsequently came under persecution.

Augustine’s famous debate with the English Monk Pelagius came toward the end of the former’s life and career when his energy and strength were beginning to wane. Augustine’s treatises written in direct response to various Pelagian errors still stand and are the basis for “Augustinian Christianity,” which occupies a significant status in the churches of the Reformation’s intellectual family tree. But Brown’s discussion of Augustine’s dust up with the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum exposes Brown’s sympathies toward Julian (and perhaps a bit of sympathy toward Pelagius as well). Here, Brown treats Augustine’s response to Julian as that of a cranky old man who had seen enough of Pelagius and his followers, and failed to give Julian the sort of full reply his variety of Pelagianism deserved.

As Augustine fell ill with a persistent fever, Hippo was surrounded by invading Vandals—a Germanic Arian tribe who crossed over from Spain and occupied much of North Africa before laying siege to Hippo. Knowing death was near, Augustine insisted upon being alone, and from his sick bed spent his final days praying and reading large manuscripts of the Psalms hung up on the walls in his room. He died on August 28, 430 at the age of 75—and is no doubt ranked among the most important figures in the history of Christianity.

I put off-re-reading this gem far too long. This one is highly recommended. Tolle lege!

Recommended Resources:

• How to read and understand the Book of Revelation

• Mike Horton on the “Holy Land”

• Who was Napoleon III and Why Does He Matter for Contemporary American Politics?

• The irony here is that there is no group which spews more hate than the SPLC. And then there’s this: SLPC official arrested for fraud

• So what about Luther and the Jews? Carl Trueman reminds us of lessons to be learned from Luther

• Wow, some beams found from Solomon’s temple

• Reformed Dogmatika has published an excellent series of charts and factoids presenting and defending Amillennialism. Highly recommended!

Fun Stuff:

• Islamic cleric decries Western use of toilet paper. Excuse me if I don’t shake his hand

• A Guinness aged to perfection!

• Who on earth would let Gavin Newsom anywhere near a church pulpit?

• I’d never wear a football helmet again

• Not the way to handle a missed flight

• Probably not the best place to take a zoom call

• So, he’s a time-traveler from 4413? Does he have six fingers and cool futuristic clothing? Of course not. I’ll bet he left his foil hat in the future too

• Great way to get rid of flock cameras—just announce they are full of copper wiring and let things take their course

• When fido gets his buzz on and demands Jack in the Box tacos

• Reminds me of Kramer’s custom license plate

• More irony: Mexico warns its citizens about “Uncle Sam’s Revenge”

• As a kid, it was a dare to eat chocolate covered bugs—now it is a thing in a two starred Michelin restaurant

Previous Musings: Summer Musings 7/17/2026

Video:

These things can be cheesy, but this one actually works . . .

A Constant Source of Speculation

It is difficult to find anything in the Bible which has provoked as much unbiblical speculation as has the doctrine of antichrist. The very mention of this mysterious figure sends the Christian imagination off and running. This is nothing new. The church fathers, by and large, thought the Antichrist would be an apostate Jew who would come to power after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Reformers–and virtually the entire Reformed tradition–have seen the warning about antichrist fulfilled in the Roman papacy. More recently, the dispensationalists have taught that the Antichrist will appear near the time of the end in connection with the rapture of the church. At the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period, dispensationalists tell us, the Antichrist will make a seven-year peace treaty with the nation of Israel before turning on God’s ancient people, declaring himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Much of this antichrist speculation is so far afield from the way John uses the term “antichrist” in his epistles, it is truly remarkable. For the apostle John, antichrist is not some dreaded future foe, but a very present threat to those to whom he is writing. John warns his readers in Asia Minor, “Antichrist is coming.”

Context, Context, Context . . .

We now take up John’s warning regarding the Antichrist in verses 18-27, the final of the four things in this part of John chapter 2 which John says should characterize all those who walk in the light. The first thing which should characterize Christians, John says, is that they confess their sins (1:5-2:2). The second thing they will do is to strive to obey the commandments of God, which are a published revelation of God’s will (2:3-11). Those who walk in darkness have no interest in God’s law. Then, in verses 12-17, John warns us not to love the world. John is not referring to the physical world (the universe) when he warns us not to love the world. Rather, John is referring to the fallen world as it is currently under the control of the evil one (cf. 1 John 5:19). John puts this in very stark either/or terms. If we love the fallen world in its opposition to God, we cannot love the Father.

This brings us to verses 18-27 and the fourth characteristic of those who walk in the light–they will oppose the many antichrists who have already gone out into the world. In order to make sense of John’s warning about these antichrists–these arch-enemies of Jesus Christ who is the word made flesh–recall that John is responding to an early form of Gnosticism, which held that reality exists in the form of a dualism between pure spirit (the good) and matter (evil). As we have seen, this conception of the universe makes Christ’s incarnation a metaphysical impossibility because if these proto-Gnostic categories are in fact correct, God (who is pure spirit) cannot take to himself a true human nature (which would be evil). In order to explain the physical appearances of Jesus in the gospels these proto-Gnostics opposed by John were affirming that while Jesus was truly God, he only appeared to be human (or took the form of a human). It is this so-called docetic heresy which John will now label the “spirit of antichrist.” This definition is quite different from the way in which most people use the term.

Two Different Ways to Speak of Antichrist

When it comes to the term “antichrist,” it is important to notice that theologians use the term in two ways. The first is the broad use, which is a reference to the end-time foe of Christ and his church. The second, and narrow use of the term is used by John in this epistle. The broad use (which is far and away the most common) refers to that mysterious end-times figure whom Paul labels the “Man of Sin (2 Thessalonians 2) and whom John calls “the beast” in the Book of Revelation (i.e., Revelation 13). This individual is usually thought to be the final antichrist in the series of antichrists about which John warns his readers in these epistles. When Christians speak of the “Antichrist,” they are most often referring to that individual who appears at the time of the end and who is a composite figure which we get when we put all the information from John (the beast, antichrists) and Paul (“Man of Sin”) together.

The second and “narrow” way the term is that used by the apostle John in his first two epistles. John uses the term “antichrist” as a specific reference to those false teachers who deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. For the apostle John, an antichrist is anyone who embraces the docetic heresy threatening the churches in Asia Minor at the time John writes these epistles. So, when we speak of the Antichrist, we need to keep in mind that the term can be used in these two ways. John’s usage of the term in these epistles–John, by the way, is the only biblical writer who even uses the term “antichrist”–is vastly different from the way in which most people use the term. In these epistles John is not warning us of a future end times foe, but of an ever-present threat to Christ’s church.

With that in mind, as we move into our text (verses 18-27 of the second chapter of this epistle), John turns to the subject of eschatology and begins by explaining how we as Christians should understand that period of time (the “last hour”) in which we presently live.

Antichrist Has Come

There are a number of important points made by John in verse 18. “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” Once again, John speaks to his audience in the most intimate of terms, calling them “children.” This is a term which conveys both a personal fondness for his audience, as well as a sort of fatherly authority which is the basis for the warning he is about to issue to his readers.[1]

Two times in this verse, John announces that the church–remember, John is writing before the end of the first century–has already entered into the last (or “final) hour. Putting things into their proper perspective on the eschatological time-line (the way in which last things will unfold), John reminds his audience that they were already living in the final period of human history. This is consistent with a number of passages in the Old Testament in which Israel’s prophets spoke of the future messianic age as the final period of human history. As we see in Daniel 12:1-3,

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

In these few verses, Daniel compresses together a time of persecution, salvation, and the final resurrection, a period of time which ends in everlasting life for God’s people–in other words, Christ’s first and second advents and everything in between. It is not until Christ has come, suffered, died, was raised from the dead, and only after Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed, that it becomes clear that what the prophet saw at the end was a whole series of events yet to play out. But after Jesus Christ has come, we can now read Daniel’s prophecy through the lens of Christ’s person and work. John’s readers could see (with New Testament hindsight) what the Old Testament saints could not have possibly understood. Jesus Christ will fulfill all of these events through his death, resurrection, and ascension, and through his second coming at the end of the age. What Daniel saw as one event is now seen as a series of events.

The Last Hour

So, when John speaks of the “last hour,” he is speaking of that final period in human history, which began when Jesus rose from the dead and was taken up into heaven, and which runs until Jesus returns on the final day to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. Because Jesus Christ is the word manifest in the flesh, and because he is now in heaven making intercession for all of those for whom he has died, believers must understand that we are living in the final epoch of human history. Jesus Christ will come back on the last day, and when he does human history comes to an end. But until Jesus returns, John says that we are living in the “last hour.” So, while the Bible prophecy pundits are correct to remind us that the New Testament speaks repeatedly about the last days, the fact of the matter is that the last days began with Christ’s ascension, and not with the formation of Israel in 1948! The “last hour,” is John’s way of speaking of the final period of human history as God’s people await the Lord’s return at the end of the age.[2]

According to John, the sure sign that his readers were already living in the last hour is the presence of many antichrist[s]. Notice the plural. John’s point is that since many antichrists have already come we know that we are living in the last hour. As mentioned, John is the only writer in all the New Testament to speak of “antichrist.” Many people are surprised when they are informed that the term “antichrist” does not appear at all in the Book of Revelation, which is quite remarkable since I take John the Apostle (the author of this epistle) to be the same John to whom the vision recorded in the Book of Revelation was given. In any case, the presence of “antichrists” is a characteristic of the “last hour.” Therefore, this announcement should not come as a surprise to John’s readers.

John’s Warning

There are four passages in 1 and 2 John in which the apostle speaks of these antichrists. The first is 1 John 1:18. It also apopears in 1 John 2:22, where John writes, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” In 1 John 4:3, John informs us that “every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” And then finally, John speaks of antichrist in verse 7 of his second epistle. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

Taking the sum of these passages we can assert the following. When John wrote these epistles just before the end of the first century, many antichrists were already present. Although John is writing to warn his audience about these men, they should not be surprised that antichrists have come. The presence of such antichrists is one of the characteristics of the last hour–that final period of human history before Christ returns. Antichrists are those false teachers who deny that Jesus is the Christ (i.e., God manifest in the flesh). These men are liars, John says, who, in denying Christ’s incarnation, deny both the Father and the son. Anyone who teaches such a thing has imbibed from the spirit of antichrist, which is already present in the world. While many deceivers have gone out (from the church) into the world, those who deny that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh are antichrists.

Given John’s clarity about the present reality of these men and the nature of their false teaching, it is a wonder that John’s warning to the churches of Asia Minor about those teaching the docetic heresy has been transmuted into someone like Nicolae Carpathia, the fictional villain of the “Left Behind” novels which to date have sold something like fifty million copies. While I do believe that there will be an end-times antichrist, in these epistles John is warning us about a present foe–someone with whom we must deal and with whom the church has dealt since the beginning.[3]

Antichrist, Apostasy, and Heresy

And these individuals are easily identified–we look to their confession about Jesus Christ. Do they confess that Jesus is God in human flesh? If not, we are dealing with an antichrist. Indeed, anyone who denies that Jesus is the word of life manifest in the flesh (i.e, his incarnation and the two natures of Christ, divine and human) is an antichrist. It is as simple as that. And there are many of them out there–for example, the Word of Faith teachers. They have very popular “ministries,” they dominate social media. Antichrists are everywhere. You don’t need Tucker Carlson or Peter Thiel to tell you who they are! We simply look to their confession about Christ. Do they believe that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh? If not, they possess the spirit of antichrist. This, by the way, is one of most important reasons why our creeds, confessions and catechisms are so important. If we don’t know who Jesus is–the word manifest in the flesh–then we are fair game for these antichrists who, John says, are certain to come.

In verse 19, John tells us that these false teachers troubling the churches are apostates. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” Although John doesn’t go into the circumstances of how this happened, he is clear that many antichrists have gone out “from us,” i.e., from the church. Somehow, these people have been taken in by those who claim to have “secret” teaching about Jesus which supposedly reveals that Jesus is not God manifest in the flesh. Having rejected John’s doctrine of the incarnation–Jesus is God manifest in the flesh–those who went out have likewise embraced the docetic heresy–Jesus is fully God, but only appears in human form.

The Apostates “Were Not of Us”

Notice too John’s emphasis upon the fact that those who fell away “went out from us because they were not of us.” John makes plain in these verses what has become the foundation of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. “If they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This passage only makes sense in light of verses 1-2 which opened the chapter. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Since Christ dies and intercedes for his people, those who went out “from us” demonstrate that they are not, nor never were, truly Christ’s. In fact, in his high-priestly prayer of John 17, Jesus says “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” These are people who for a time profess faith in Christ, but who were never given by the Father to Jesus before the foundation of the world. Therefore he did not die for them, nor does he plead for them as their advocate before the Father. In fact, by calling such people “antichrists” John speaks of these people as Christ’s enemies because they deny one of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith. They are undermining the truth of the gospel and the work of Christ through their deceptive teaching. We also see in this verse biblical support for the visible church, which professes orthodox doctrine, and the invisible church—which is composed of the full number of the elect. A true church defends the faith against antichrist. A true believer will indeed persevere to the end of their lives in faith because Christ intercedes for them.[4]

The notion that those for whom Christ has died and for whom he presently intercedes will persevere to the end of their lives in faith and be saved is made plain in verse 20. “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” Notice the contrast–“they” those who went out from us, and “you” who are anointed and who know. Those who are truly Christ’s (those for whom he died, and for whom he presently intercedes) are now said to be “anointed” by the Holy One, and characterized by the fact that they have (true) knowledge.

Perhaps John is using a bit of word play here in contrasting God’s people–those who have been anointed by the Holy One[5] and who have received the Spirit through the word–with those who do not have knowledge, and who have not received this anointing, i.e. those antichrists who have gone out from us. But let us not miss John’s primary point. Those for whom Christ died, and for whom he intercedes, and who are anointed by the Holy One, (this is the same anointing that Jesus himself possessed),[6] have knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the word made flesh). If they have knowledge of the word manifest in the flesh, then they have no need of any “secret” or esoteric knowledge which might be taught them by those who deny that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh.

You Know the Truth

Thus in verse 21, John can remind his audience, “I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.” Unlike the proto-Gnostics who have “secrets” about Jesus to reveal, John has nothing new to teach his readers about Jesus, because they already know that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh. That truth which they already know casts out all falsehoods (lies) about Jesus–such as those being taught by the proto-Gnostics. John’s point then is that those who know that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh, can now easily distinguish truth from error. Jesus, as the word made flesh, is the truth. Therefore, anyone who denies the incarnation of Christ has embraced a falsehood–the implication being that they do so willingly. This means that Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh is the standard of theological truth for all of God’s people.

Antichrist – The Liar

The consequences for those who deny this are spelled out in verses 22-23. “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” All those who deny the incarnation, John says, are liars. When they claim to be enlightened and that they have risen above their sins, they are lying. When they teach that Jesus was God but not fully human, they lie. When they do either of these things, they are denying the incarnation of Jesus, and are doing the work of antichrist. According to the apostle John, to deny that Jesus is the Christ is to destroy any relationship they may claim to have with the Father. You cannot embrace the phantom docetic Jesus, without at the same time denying the Father, who sent Jesus to earth as a flesh and blood Savior precisely for the purpose of saving sinners. At the same time, the converse is also true. If you embrace Jesus as word manifest in the flesh through faith, then you are united to the Father.

From the writings of Irenaeus, about eighty years later (180 C. E.), we do know that one of the most famous of the heretics facing the early church was a man named Cerinthus, a Jewish/Gnostic, who taught that a divine emanation (“Christ”) came upon the man Jesus in the form of a dove at the time of his baptism.[7] When Jesus was crucified, this divine emanation then departed from Jesus leaving him to die and rise again as a mere man. Cerinthus’s heresy clearly denies the incarnation of Christ–Jesus was never anything but a man, who was for a time possessed by “the Christ.” This is different from the docetic heresy which denies the humanity of Christ while affirming his deity. But the presence of Cerinthus in Ephesus, and the tradition from Irenaeus that the apostle John refused to remain in the same public bath-house with the arch-heretic, certainly supports the idea that by the end of the first century a number of Christological heresies were being taught in the area around Ephesus, and that the apostle John identifies them with the spirit of antichrist.

Since John has clearly warned his readers about these antichrists and their denial of our Lord’s incarnation, he now closes out this section by giving his readers two safeguards which will protect them from being led astray by deceivers. The first of these safeguards is found in verses 24-25. “Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.” What Christians have heard from the beginning is the gospel–the word of life. Therefore, John exhorts us to remain (or abide) in the same message (the gospel) which originally gave us life. And as we abide in the gospel, we will abide (remain) in Christ and in the Father. And what has God promised us in that word of life in which we abide? Eternal life! It seems to me that this is about as clear a declaration as one could find which directs Christians to continually focus upon the gospel as a means of driving out error.

Be Warned!

In verses 26-27, John issues yet another warning–that those who embrace false doctrine will try to deceive them–before he issues his second safeguard.

I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

It should be apparent that false teachers and antichrists will be an ever-constant threat. Not only must we oppose them with the truth, we must remain in the gospel. In verse 27 John speaks of the anointing we have received. This is a reference to our initiation into Christ by the same Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would come into world, and who abides (or remains in us). Because the Spirit has anointed us, and remains in us, we have no need whatsoever for anyone to teach us some secret about Christ which is not found in the word of God. It is the Spirit then who reveals to us that which is taught in the gospel is true. Since the Spirit teaches all we need to know through the word of life, in Jesus we find the truth, and we must strive to abide (or remain) in him, by striving to remain in his word. Simply put, this is how we walk in the light. We remain in the word of God, where we find the word of life and light, Jesus, who is God manifest in the flesh.

What Application Should We Draw From This Passage?

John is crystal clear that there are many antichrists who have already come, because it is the last hour. These men are deceivers and liars who deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. We can easily find them–not by looking for a 666 birthmark on their scalp–but through their teaching about the identity of Jesus. If they deny our Lord’s true human nature, or his incarnation, then they are antichrists. It is not a question of whether or not they will come, but when and how often.

John’s warning to us about these men is also tied to a directive about how to oppose them–abiding in the truth. But we can’t oppose them with the truth, if we don’t know what the truth is. If this is not a call for all of us to learn basic Christian doctrine and know what is in our Bibles, I don’t know what is. John is, in effect, calling us to be well-catechized. We can’t fight off error if we don’t know the truth. John calls us to abide in the gospel–the good news that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, who died for our sins turning aside God’s wrath, who was raised from the dead, and who then ascended on high where he is now making intercession for us as our advocate before the Father. This is the truth, John says, in which we must remain. This is what we need to know to oppose the antichrists who will go out from us.

This, then, is why John exhorts us to abide in God’s word. It is here where the Spirit speaks to us and reveals to us the truth about Jesus Christ. It is fair to say that the best way to walk in the light, is to abide (remain) in God’s word. For God’s word is truth. The light of God’s word exposes error and reveals these antichrists to us. Beloved, John’s warning applies to us every bit as much as it did to the original audience–“Antichrist is coming.” Indeed many antichrists have already come because it is the last hour. So let us walk in the light of God’s word where we find our Savior and are anointed by his Spirit. Let us walk in the light of God’s promise to give us eternal life. Let us walk in the light, because light casts out error and exposes the spirit of antichrist.

___________________________________________

[1] Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 95.

[2] Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 95.

[3] I discuss the evidence for this in my book Man of Sin (Baker, 2006).

[4] Stott, The Epistles of John, 111.

[5] Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 106-107.

[6] Stott, The Epistles of John, 111-112.

[7] Cf. the discussions of Cerinthus and his influence in: Brown, The Epistles of John, 766-771; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 111.

Article 15: Contrasting Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance

This teaching about the perseverance of true believers and saints, and about their assurance of it—a teaching which God has very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers—is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.

___________________________________

Article fifteen concludes the fifth head of doctrine by offering a brief summary of the previous articles before the Canons take up the refutations of particular Arminian objections to the Reformed understanding of perseverance in the following section. The doctrine of perseverance should bring comfort to the people of God, reminding us that God does not call us to faith in Jesus and indwell us with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14), only to give up on us should we not make quick enough progress in the Christian life, or in those cases where we are plagued by doubt or fall into deep sin. The very heart of the Reformed doctrine is that we persevere in faith because Jesus Christ preserves us in the faith. He will lose none of his sheep, he will save all those given him by the Father, and no one shall snatch them from his hand (John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30).

As the Canons note, and as we have seen throughout our time looking at the articles under the fifth head of doctrine, the doctrine of perseverance is taught throughout the Scriptures and does two very important things. First, the doctrine directs our attention away from ourselves and our daily struggles to Jesus Christ, who preserves us through the means of grace—his Word and Sacraments. This is especially difficult and important for us moderns to learn: the painful lesson that not all of life and reality centers around us. The second thing this doctrine does is direct us away from our selfish preoccupation with ourselves unto the glory of God. The Canons speak of this as “very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers.”

But this doctrine was one of the primary objections of the Dutch Arminians, who challenged it on the grounds that if Christians were told that, since they were presently saved, they should be assured that they will finally be saved, then this opens the door toward indifference to living the Christian life with the goal of finally obtaining salvation. It is argued (then as now) that if people know with certainty that they cannot lose their salvation, what reason is there to live godly lives? This removes the implied incentive for Christian living: fear of punishment and hope of reward. As we noted previously, the Christian life (as understood by the Arminians of that time, and by the Wesleyans later) is a carrot-and-stick affair. As long as you strive to take the carrot, you won’t get hit from behind with the stick. Understood in this manner (which makes sense to Adam’s fallen children and their darkened understanding), the Christian life becomes an entirely self-centered matter. The Canons express the matter as one which “the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack.”

The authors of the Canons were primarily concerned with the comfort promised God’s people in his Word. The herald comes to comfort God’s people (Isaiah 40:1), not threaten them or complain that they are not doing enough, nor making progress fast enough. Yes, as the Canons have noted, Scripture warns us about neglecting sin and exhorts us to seek holiness. But if these warnings come to us apart from a prior notion of assurance of salvation (law without Gospel), they will lead to despair and fear on the part of most, as well as self-righteousness on the part of those who do think they are living above sin and making rapid progress. This is a terrible and dangerous place to be.

But to those who know that even now Jesus is performing his kingly, priestly, and prophetic work on our behalf, we affirm with the authors that this is an important and wonderful doctrine, and provides the proper incentive to serve God, seek his glory, and strive to live in holiness. “The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.”

Episode Synopsis:

What happens to those who know right from wrong but choose to follow their own path even though their conscience and the Word of God warn them not to go that way? No, lightning does not strike them, nor does the ground open up beneath their feet and swallow them whole. They don’t keel over dead. According to Paul, what does happen to those who willingly exchange the truth of God for a lie and who willfully suppress the truth in unrighteousness is far more consequential than it seems at first glance. In exposing Gentile sinfulness, Paul warns of how God gives such people over to the consequences of their sin. If this is the path they persist in taking, well then, God will let them follow it to the end—an end, Paul says, that is deserving of death.

While it is common for Christians to emphasize those sexual sins that figure prominently in Paul’s vice list in Romans 1:18–32 (and indeed they do), the sins mentioned here by Paul are universal to all of Adam’s fallen race and include things we might consider “little” or insignificant sins—envy, gossip, and disobedience to parents. The point of this list is to show the Gentile Christians in Rome that despite the fact that they know neither Moses nor the law of God, their sins are self-evident and condemn the entire human race. No one will be able to stand before God on Judgment Day and claim, “But I did nothing wrong.” And “if I did something wrong,” it is certainly not worthy of eternal condemnation. But since God is holy and cannot look upon sin, Paul’s vice list makes clear the sobering fact that all of us are sinners who have sinned against God and whose hearts are filled with sin and darkness.

Those who don’t think this is fair are those who compare themselves to their neighbor, some of whom are better than they are, while some are worse. But God does not measure us by our neighbor; he measures us by his perfect holiness, which he demands of all his creatures.

The dreaded phrase “God gave them over” reminds us that we cannot stand before God on the Day of Judgment and plead ignorance or claim that our sins really are not that big a deal, deserving of such severe punishment. “I didn’t kill anyone.” Maybe not with my hands, but I’ve done it countless times in my heart, and so have you. Although the phrase “God gave them over” has an eerie finality about it, we also ought to consider that the process of letting sinners feel the weight and consequences of their sins just might be the means by which God is preparing people to come to faith and repentance. The conviction of sin is a work of the Holy Spirit. The conviction of sin is actually a good thing—because we realize that we need to be delivered from the guilt and power of sin. Much better to feel the conviction of sin than to be allowed to continue uninterrupted on our chosen path to destruction.

Show Notes:

• Sung to the tune of Tull’s Aqualung: “Sweat running down his face, sweaty fingers holding dripping papers.” I recorded the episode during the height of our typical So Cal summer monsoon. I have to turn off the air conditioning and the ceiling fan so they don’t interfere with the recording. Lets just say it was hot and miserable.

• My voice is still “thin.” Something’s blooming here which sets my sinuses off.

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

Mike Horton on “Without Excuse”

Ligon Duncan on “Why We Are Without Excuse”

R. C. Sproul on “Suppressing the Truth” (audio)

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegret

The Christian mystic, Evelyn Underhill, still remains a popular figure in certain Anglo-Catholic groups, spiritual retreat movements, and among those interested in Christian mysticism and contemplative spirituality—especially as a means of coping with secularization and what such people consider to be sterile doctrinal rigidity—i.e., confessional Protestantism. Her views still find an eager audience among the “spiritual but not religious crowd” being addressed by Michael Horton’s three volume series on the subject. Underhill died in 1941, but her books became popular in the 1910s, drawing scrutiny from the guard dog of Old Princeton, B. B. Warfield.

In Part One, I addressed the background to Warfield’s stinging review of Evelyn Underhill’s works championing a so-called “Christian” mysticism—a subjective religious impulse grounded in what my late colleague Rod Rosenbladt called the “liver shiver,” an ecstatic experience not based upon the clear voice of God found in his Word when it is read and preached.

Warfield’s “review” addresses the challenge raised by mystics that doctrine divides, but spirituality—such as a “conversion experience”—unites a broad segment of Americans, which includes many professing evangelicals who do not agree with each other on important fundamental doctrines. In Part Two, Warfield points out that the “Absolute” supposedly encountered by Mrs. Underhill has much in common with the inscription on the infamous Athenian altar dedicated to an “unknown god,” mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23. In fact, a better term for the “religiosity of the human spirit,” might just be “the flesh,” as identified by Paul in Romans 8:5-8.

In part three of my look at Warfield’s “Review” of Underhill’s works (his “Review” was written in 1914), he continues to press her on her slippery definitions—a nagging problem associated with mystical religious experience, which claims to be “felt,” and therefore difficult to put into explanatory words. This matters because Christianity is essentially a religion of objective truth (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) revealed in revelatory speech and acts, not in subjective experience. The heart should follow the mind, not leap-frog over it.

Warfield continues to press her on the matter of definitions.

Miss Underhill reformulates her definitions thus (p. 97): “Mysticism, then, is not an opinion: it is not a philosophy. It has nothing in common with the pursuit of occult knowledge. It is not merely the power of contemplating Eternity. It is the name of that organic process which involves the perfect consummation of the Love of God: the achievement here and now of the immortal heritage of man. Or, if you like it better—for this means exactly the same thing—it is the art of establishing his conscious relation with the Absolute.”

But just who or what is the “absolute”? Here the mystic runs into reality that the God of the Bible is holy and those who encounter him experience nothing but sheer terror due to his glorious transcendence and holiness (see Isaiah 6:1-7; Hebrews 12:29). This is why any proper Christian relationship to God must be established in and through the incarnate Son (whose glory is veiled in human flesh) and through the indwelling Holy Spirit who enables us to approach the holy God as Father, without fear or terror.

Warfield sees the inconsistency in Underhill’s attempts at definition as highly problematic.

What was formerly declared to be a “science” has now become explicitly an “art”: but in varying the term we do not escape from the thing—behind the “art” the “science” necessarily lies. Miss Underhill says the Mystic is the man who has attained to union with the Absolute. Let us be more modest and say that the Mystic is the man who professes, or supposes himself, to have attained to union with the Absolute. Then Mysticism surely may be fairly described as that congeries of notions which are presupposed or implicated in this profession; or, if we choose, in the practice of the art by which this end is supposed to be attained. It would seem, therefore, that it must inevitably embrace a doctrine of the Absolute; a doctrine of the relation of the human spirit to this Absolute; a doctrine of the possibility of the human spirit attaining “union with the Absolute”; a doctrine of the nature of this “union with the Absolute” which the human spirit may attain.

But the subjective nature of Underhill’s enterprise means that no real definition of the “absolute” is possible and all we have is mere opinion—“I think,” “I feel.” Such subjective claims, with little or no reference to any sort of objective reality, sadly, is the way in which many of our contemporaries determine their “personal truth.” What some describe as an “experience of the divine,” might just a weird thought, or an idea, a dream, or perhaps, lunch not properly digesting.

Warfield continues his attempt to pin Underhill down . . .

Here certainly there is “an opinion,” or rather a body of opinions; and certainly there is here “a philosophy,” and, we are afraid we shall have to add, what, despite the vagueness which may be allowed to cling to the several notions involved, looks very much like that specific philosophy which we know as Pantheism. It is notorious that in the history of religious thought the types which it has been commonly agreed to speak of as Mystical have ordinarily been associated with Pantheistic or at least Pantheizing conceptions: the very language of Mysticism has been dictated to it by Pantheism, and it is therefore in any event difficult for the Mystic to express himself without at least seeming to declare himself a Pantheist.

Pantheism is the usual consequence of such mysticism, but Underhill tries to mitigate the charge.

Miss Underhill has reduced this Pantheizing implication to a minimum in her formal definitions. Therefore in the one now before us she avoids even declaring that Mysticism is the “science of union with the Absolute.” Instead, she says that it is the process by which man enters into the conscious enjoyment of the love of God—by which, she truly says, he “achieves” “his immortal heritage”: and in the alternative clause she explains that what Mysticism seeks is the establishment of “conscious relation with the Absolute.” Obviously these are carefully chosen phrases. If we were to abide by the breadth of their suggestion Mysticism would be what indeed Miss Underhill calls it (p. x.), just “the science or art of the Spiritual life.” Every “other-worldly-minded” man would be a Mystic.

Ask yourself, “do you want a conscious relationship with the absolute”—defined as a consuming fire in Hebrews—”apart from the mediatorial work and intercession of the incarnate Christ?” I would think not!

There are other views proposed to us of what “the immortal heritage of man” consists in, and of how it may be achieved. There is, to go no further, Christianity, which thinks that it can point the way to the enjoyment of “the perfect consummation of the Love of God,” and finds the Way in Christ. Mysticism is not sufficiently defined by simply declaring that it differs from all these by—“doing the trick.” Many have essayed to penetrate to “the Reality behind the veil,” says Miss Underhill (p. 4): “but if we may trust the reports of the mystics—and their reports are given with a strange accent of certainty and good faith—they have succeeded where all these others have failed, in establishing immediate communication between the spirit of man, entangled as they declare amongst material things, and that’ only Reality,’ that immaterial and final Being, which some philosophers call the Absolute, and most theologians call God.” It is a great claim—if only it can be substantiated. Its substantiation is, however, the last thing the Mystic seems to think of.

Warfield grants that Underhill appeals to “the way in Christ.” But does she do so to make appeal to his example of how to experience God?—just like Jesus did. Or does she appeal to a redeemer and mediator between the Holy God and sinful men and women? No, of course not. As Warfield points out, apart from the definitions of God’s nature and attributes found in Scripture, all Underhill can offer her fellow mystics are unsubstantiated claims, knowing if she even attempts to substantiate her claims, she ceases to be a good mystic.

Warfield notes that William James, the father of American Pragmatism, and astute observer of “varieties of religious experiences,” like that claimed by Underhill, differs from her vague definitions

Even William James’s well-known definition (“The Varieties of Religious Experience,” 1902, p. 508) is better—for at least it is discriminating. He finds the “nucleus of agreement” among all Mystics in the feeling of the subject that his higher self is “conterminous and continuous with a More of the same quality, which is operative in the universe outside of him, and which he can keep in working touch with, and in a fashion get on board of and save himself when all his lower being has gone to pieces in the wreck.” Clearly on this conception Mysticism is fundamentally Pantheistic, and therefore Quick criticizes it. It is not inclusive, he says, of Christian Mysticism through which there runs a profound feeling of “infinite otherness” from God; and he goes on to insist that Mysticism embraces every and “any direct consciousness of God’s presence and nature” (Journal of Theological Studies, xiii. 1912, p. 172).

The mystic seeks for direct consciousness of God through the experiences of the “higher self,” presumably one which bypasses sight, touch, and smell, and all contact with a real and objective world in which we live—a world in which God created us as his image-bearers, who are designed to function amidst things material. Set off on a mountain or desert hike without maps or GPS, and instead seek to be led by the experience felt by your “higher self” in communion with the Absolute, and months later, a team of searchers will find your remains. There is no “higher self,” and attempting to listen to it is a dead end. But there certainly is a God who reveals himself in nature and his Word, which points to the person and work of Jesus, not inward to seek a “higher self” which does not exist.

Ms. Underhill seeks to escape the pantheistic charge by going her own mystical way, completely free to jettison her “Christianity” when her experiences of the absolute requires that she do so.

By thus broadening the skirts of Mysticism to enclose all “sense” of God, we may of course rid it of its Pantheistic stamp; but the question is whether we are not merely merging it thus into a wider category. What it concerns us to take note of here, however, is merely that this is Miss Underhill’s method. To her the typical form of Mysticism is Christian Mysticism, as manifested especially in the great Mediæval Saints. She is therefore careful to define it so as to make it include them; and she then proceeds to expound it from them as its purest examples. This seems to stand the whole matter upon its head. It is not in virtue of their Christianity that the Christian Mystics are Mystics: Miss Underhill, as we have seen, herself allows that their Mysticism is quite independent of their Christianity. We might better say that it is in despite of their Christianity; and that therefore Mysticism in them is modified by their Christianity just so far as their thought and practice is determined by their Christianity. They are Mystics not by virtue of what they have in common with other Christians, but by virtue of what they have in common with other Mystics.

To be continued . . .

Who Said That?

"Give me chastity and self-control, but not yet."

Here's an easy one!

Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating. 

I grew up at Knott’s Berry Farm—the famous amusement park in Buena Park, CA. My family owned and operated what surely was the only Christian bookstore in an entertainment venue like Knott’s. It was a great place to grow up and meet Christians from around the world.

Our store was located in two places. When my parents opened the store in 1955, it was located in what became Fiesta Village. In 1981, when much of Fiesta Village became “Camp Snoopy,” the Knott family graciously relocated us to the Grand Avenue shopping area, a few doors down from the famous Chicken Dinner Restaurant—a great location for business.

Both locations were adobe style buildings which were painted in Spanish mission colors (bright turquoise, with burnt orange trim and striping, on a tan background). Both buildings required periodic painting to look new and fresh—a feature of most amusement parks. At dawn, the Knott’s paint crews would scatter throughout the park and tackle the area to which they were assigned, working feverishly until the park opened a few hours later.

Since no one wanted guests to ruin their clothing, the painters posted “wet paint” signs with the added caution “do not touch.” The vast majority of days the walls near me went unpainted—no need to do so. No one (at least that I observed) ever reached out to touch any of the walls or surfaces. There was no reason to touch them. That is, until a “wet paint” sign, warning “do not touch” was posted immediately after the walls were painted.

Once the sign went up, hardly a group walked by in which someone did not go out of their way to touch the freshly painted area, only to look surprised when they got paint on their figure tips or hands. This happened over and over again throughout the years.

Why on earth would someone risk getting paint on their hands or clothing? If there had been no sign cautioning them, surely the thought would never once have entered their minds to touch wet paint.

Alas, Paul has the answer to this common human impulse. In Romans 7:7, he writes, “for I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, `You shall not covet.’” No one would think to touch wet paint until a sign warned them not to. The sign which says, “wet paint, do not touch,” becomes the internal mantra “you must touch the paint . . . you must touch the paint . . .”

Paul is, of course, speaking of the law of Moses. But the law will do its work. Human rebellion extends to all kinds of things, including taking common sense warnings as rules to be broken. To paraphrase the apostle, “I was once alive apart from the law,” (when no one cautioned me about touching wet paint) “but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died” (when I saw the sign, I got paint on my fingers and then ruined my clothes).

Not Specific Things, But an Attitude

Christians don’t seem to worry about this much anymore, but in the churches of my youth it was common to hear sermons on the evils of “worldliness.” “Worldliness” was always tied to certain things–cigarettes, alcohol, playing cards, women wearing pants, men with long hair, and other assorted man-made blue laws. We were taught that if you avoided these things, you would not become “worldly.” If you are old enough to remember such sermons, you know exactly what I am talking about. If you are not, count your blessings! Yes, John commands us “do not love the world, for the world is passing away.” But John is not warning us about sinful things, but a sinful attitude tied to the lusts of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of possessions. Not only does John warn us about loving the world, he also reminds us that everything connected to this fallen world is destined to perish. Darkness will one day give way to light, because the light (and everything connected to it), will abide forever.

Proto-Gnosticism Is In the Background

John’s first epistle has given us a fascinating look at some of the serious issues facing the churches of Asia Minor toward the end of the first century. We are now in the second chapter of 1 John, working our way through John’s catalogue of the four things which should characterize those who walk in the light–those who have been given life by the word of life, who is God manifest in the flesh. According to John, those who walk in the light will confess their sins (1 John 1:5-2:2), and will strive to obey the commandments of God (2:3-11). We have covered these two distinctives in previous expositions. The third thing which should characterize those who walk in the light is that they are not to love the world (2:12-17). In verses 18-29, John warns the churches that many antichrists have already come into the world–a topic to which we’ll turn next time, Lord willing.

Recall that John is dealing with an early form of Gnosticism which stresses “secret knowledge” and which sets up a dualism between spirit (good) and matter (evil). I’ve already spent considerable time on the distinctives of this proto-Gnosticism, so I would encourage you to look at the previous expositions in this series to understand the circumstances and context in which John’s three epistles were written. In order to properly interpret these epistles, we need to know three things: 1). Why does John write these epistles? 2). We must understand the error John is writing to correct, and 3). We need to notice that virtually everything in these epistles echoes John’s earlier statements in his gospel.

The Gnostic dualism (between spirit and matter) makes our Lord’s incarnation an impossibility. In the Gnostic conception of the universe, how can Jesus be God in human flesh when pure spirit (God) cannot come into contact with matter (which is evil)? These proto-Gnostics were forced to explain Jesus’s physical appearances in the gospels by contending that while Jesus was truly God, he merely took the form (or the appearance) of a man. In other words, Jesus was God, but not human. This is the heresy known as docetism, which John ties directly to the spirit of antichrist.

The Gnostic Heresy and the Spirit of Antichrist

The nature of this heresy explains why in the opening verses John emphatically stresses the fact that he has seen Jesus perform miracles with his own eyes, that he heard Jesus preach with his own ears, and that he even reached out and touched Jesus–who is a flesh and blood Savior, not a phantom or an apparition. John quickly moves on to warn those influenced by these false teachers, and who were now convinced that they were no longer sinful, that they are self-deceived and make God out to be a liar when they refuse to admit that they commit sin. In chapter two, John then reminds us that Jesus offered himself up as a propitiation for our sins, turning aside the wrath of God toward those for whom he is dying. John also reminds his readers that Jesus is now in heaven as our advocate, pleading our case before the Father. All of this requires a truly human Savior who is God manifest in the flesh.

As we saw last time, in verses 3-11 of chapter John reminds his readers that “by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” Although Christians such as John Wesley have misread John’s discussion as though the apostle was speaking about sanctification in terms of whether or not Christians could come to a place in their Christian lives where they could cease from sinning (i.e., “Christian perfectionism”), the context in which John writes this epistle indicates something else. If those influenced by the false teachers were claiming to be without sin, John illustrates the gravity of their error by using a simple contrast between light and darkness. Those “in the know,” who claim to have insight into the secret principles of the universe, think of themselves as “enlightened.” But the reality is they walk in darkness. They are blind to the truth because they have lived in darkness for so long they can no longer tell truth from error.

Walking In Darkness

Because they walk in darkness, they are easily recognizable–they are completely indifferent to the commandments of God which continually expose human sinfulness and reveal to us the will of God. Since Christ has died for us, and since he presently intercedes for us, Christians will walk in the light of God’s will as revealed in the word of God, and in that word manifest in the flesh. And because we walk in the light, the law of God exposes our sins (so that we are not-self deceived and foolishly claim to be without sin), while at the same time, the law shows us what it means to walk in the light. In this, the law is a teacher of sin and the rule of gratitude. Christians, who walk in the light, will strive to obey God’s commands, unlike those who walk in darkness and who have no interest in obeying the commandments.

All of this means that John is not concerned with the question of whether or not Christians can cease from sin. In fact, John’s declaration in 2:1 indicates otherwise–“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” John is simply making a contrast between those who are indifferent to sin, thereby demonstrating that they walk in darkness, and Christians–those who strive to obey God’s commandments because they are in Christ, who is the manifestation of God’s light in the world.

Those who walk in the light will strive to love their brothers and sisters, they will abide in Christ and bear that fruit which God has ordained them to produce (cf. John 15:16). Because they have the light of God’s word they will not stumble around in darkness, blind to the truth. No, those who walk in the light will strive to obey the commandments, showing themselves to be Christ’s. This is John’s primary point–the contrast between those who are truly Christ’s and those who are self-deceived is as clear as the contrast between light and darkness. The Christian faith is a public faith. God’s people walk openly in the light. Christianity is not a religion of murky secrets, or esoteric teaching, hidden in darkness.

Worldliness

So, with that bit of background and context in mind, we turn to John’s discussion of worldliness in verses 12-17. It is obvious that John has a close and fatherly relationship with those to whom he is writing, as once again he speaks of them as “little” or “dear” children. “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.” Since John goes on to speak of “fathers” and “young men” in the following verses, readers of this epistle have wondered whether or not John is using these terms to differentiate between three groups in the church (children, older men, and sons).[1] I think Augustine is on the right track here when he argues that John is speaking of the pilgrimage of every Christian man who starts off as a babe, becomes a mature son, and then finally a father of the church.[2] In other words, “children,” “sons,” and “fathers” is John’s equivalent of Paul’s “babes in Christ” and “mature in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:1; Colossians 1:28). A passage like this one offers additional evidence that this epistle was written by the Apostle John, who is now an elderly man, and who offers apostolic counsel to his “beloved,” much in the same way a grandfather speaks to his grandchildren. There is a sense here of familiarity/intimacy along with a grandfatherly sense of authority.

Indicatives and Imperatives

In any case, the declaration “because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake” is very important because it follows John’s exhortation that Christians gain certainty (i.e., “we know that we know”) because we obey God’s commandments. Once again, John reminds us of the importance of the relationship between the indicative and the imperative. An indicative is a statement of fact–Jesus Christ is a propitiation for our sins (as in verse 2) and in the phrase we find here– “your sins have been forgiven” (v. 12), the verb is in the perfect tense. We can paraphrase this as “your sins have been and remain forgiven.”[3] Why must Christians obey the commandments (the imperative)? Because their sins are presently forgiven (the indicative).

The law and the gospel must be kept in proper balance so that you don’t get legalism (i.e., “those who obey God’s commandments are/become Christians through their obedience to the commandments”), or antinomianism (i.e., “since Christ has come, the commandments are no longer binding upon a Christian”). Despite the command to obey the commandments because this is what Christ’s people do (they walk in the light), at the same time for John, the indicative has the last word–“your sins are (and have been) forgiven.” It is vital that we keep this relation between law-gospel and the indicative-imperative in mind so that we don’t make either the perfectionist or antinomian errors.

“Little Children”

So, having comforted his “little children” in verse 12, John speaks to “fathers” (the most mature members of the church) in verse 13. “I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.” Those who have been Christians for some time, and who are mature in the faith, “know” him (Jesus Christ) who was “from the beginning.” No doubt, this is an echo from the prologue of John’s gospel (vv. 1-5) where John wrote,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Despite the turmoil brought upon the churches to which John is writing by those who have departed from the faith and who are doing the work of antichrist, John reminds the mature that they know who Jesus is, and that the one who was “from the beginning” will certainly be able to see his people through whatever crisis the church may be presently facing.[4] The fathers in the faith (complete with their gray hair or bald heads) have lived long enough to learn the lesson of God’s faithfulness. They know him (Jesus) who was in the beginning (God manifest in the flesh). They have no need of any “secret” information which a false teacher might impart to them.

Overcoming the Evil One

In verse 14, John refers to young men, (“sons”). “I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.” To those who are not new to the faith, but still young in age, John reminds them that they “have conquered” the evil one. Although the evil one is not named, it is apparent that John is referring to Satan. This is an echo from John 17:15. During his famous high priestly prayer, Jesus prays “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.”

At this point we need to purge from our minds images of the Devil we’ve drawn from popular culture, like that of the Exorcist or the Omen. Satan does not possess people so they spew out green stuff, or so that they blaspheme at the sight of a crucifix. No, Satan’s work is much more diabolical than that–he is the ultimate author of all heresy and false teaching. Behind the many antichrists who have already gone out from the church, is the evil one. We might put it this way–Satan writes the antichrist’s best material.

Recall that in John’s gospel (8:44), John has explicitly told us what Satan does. “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Since the issue facing the congregations to which John is writing is false religion (proto-Gnosticism) and heresy (docetism), John is reminding the young men that since they have come to a knowledge of the truth, they have already overcome Satan.

In John’s gospel, Jesus told his disciples, “the ruler of this world is coming” (Satan) and “he has no claim on me.” Therefore, those who walk in the light overcome the evil one, because they are “in Christ” over whom Satan has no claim. When we walk in the light (of God’s word) the darkness (Satan’s schemes and heresies) are driven out, just as cockroaches flee when exposed by light. We overcome the work of Satan, by proclaiming the truth. This is, of course, keeping with John’s emphasis upon Christianity as a public religion, grounded in history, with a flesh and blood savior, and with God’s commandments published for all to see at Mount Sinai. As we walk in the light, we are delivered from the schemes of the Devil who secretly does his work while hiding in the darkness.

Knowing the Father

As for the children, John states at the end of verse 13, “I write to you, children, because you know the Father.” Because Christ is God manifest in the flesh, if the children know Christ, they also know the Father. John’s statement here certainly recalls to mind the discussion between Jesus and Philip as recounted in John 14. In that chapter, Jesus was informing the disciples that he must leave them, and the disciples were having a very difficult time grasping the meaning of his words. Jesus told them that “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Struggling to grasp this, Philip asks Jesus the critical question. “Philip said to him, `Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’” Jesus’ answer is truly remarkable. “Jesus said to him, `Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.’” This is the same point John is making here. Those who know Christ, know the Father.

In many ways, verse 14 is a rhythmic restatement of verses 12-13, recounting one more time (for the sake of emphasis) the benefits of living in the light.[5] “I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.” The fathers (mature) know Christ. The young men are strong, because they know God’s word. The light of God’s word enables all of us to overcome Satan and thwart his deceptive devices–the propagation of heresy and the work of antichrist.

In verses 15-17, John now turns to a discussion of the Christian’s relationship with the world. As one commentator puts it, “Christian people have entered into a great inheritance in the forgiveness of sins, fellowship with God and the conquest of the evil one, but their temptations have not come to an end.”[6] This is the first time the apostle will mention the world, but it certainly won’t be the last, as we will see as we make our way further into the epistle. When John speaks of the world (kosmos), he uses the term in two distinct ways. In John 1:10, the Apostle uses the term in reference to the created universe, i.e., life on earth. “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.” But John can also use the term (world) in reference to human society as it is controlled by the evil one, i.e., the world in its opposition to God. The latter sense is how John uses the term in verses 15-17.[7]

The Strong Imperative

This is important to keep in mind in light of the strong imperative directed to those who walk in the light found in verse 15. “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Notice that the verse contains a contrast between the love of the world (or things in the world) and love of the Father. Those who walk in the light cannot love the Father and the world at the same time. If we miss John’s point and confuse the two meanings of “world” we will make a huge mess of things.

John is not telling us to hate the created order. Not only did God create the universe, but we read in John 3:16 that “for God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” C. S. Lewis was absolutely correct when he said “[God] likes matter. He invented it.”[8] If we take John to mean that we must hate the material world, John would be asking us to do the very thing the proto-Gnostics were doing (and which John is condemning). In fact, God loved his creation so much, he sent Jesus to redeem it. No, John is here speaking of the world as fallen human society as in 1 John 5:19. “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” That is what Christians are not to love–human society, characterized by its darkness, and by the fact that it is under control of Satan.

By this we don’t take John to mean that Satan has absolute control, however–Satan is a creature after all and remains, as Luther so aptly put it, “God’s Devil.” But we do mean the world as it lies in darkness, hating the light of God’s word and preferring to live in the darkness where sin can go unnoticed without being exposed and subject to God’s judgment. This is what we are not to love. If we love the fallen world in its fallen condition (not as Christ loved it, desiring its redemption), then we do not love the father. The two loves, John says, are mutually exclusive.

The Desires of the Flesh

In verse 16, John speaks in more specific terms about the love of the world, or what is often called “worldliness.” “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.” For John, worldliness is the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and pride in possessions. It should be duly noted that in the span of three verses (vv. 14-16), John mentions the three traditional enemies of the Christian–the world (the non-Christian way of thinking and doing), the flesh (i.e., sarx, which is the sinful human nature which is a result of Adam’s fall) and the Devil. John has already mentioned that we overcome the Devil because we walk in the light as God’s truth exposes his deceptive ways. While Satan assaults us externally through the means of false doctrine, the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and our pride, spontaneously arise within us because we are fallen and therefore sinful.

This is vital to keep in mind, so that we don’t make the mistake that fundamentalists often make. They are right to warn us of the dangers of worldliness, but wrong to locate worldliness in things they consider to be sinful (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.). Not to let the Reformed off the hook, none other than the famous Dutch Reformed luminary Abraham Kuyper spoke of the Calvinist fear of worldliness manifesting itself in the three Reformed taboos–the theater, dancing, and card playing.[9] While correct to warn us of the dangers of loving the world–indeed, John commands us not to love the world–it is off target to locate the problem in things external to us. Alcohol or tobacco may never touch our lips, and yet we could still be as worldly as any Gnostic false teacher whom John is warning us about. We may have never played cards, danced, or gone to the theater, and yet we could be as worldly as we can be. The flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and pride in “things” is an attitude, it is a mindset, it is a way of thinking (walking in darkness), which leads to sinful actions..

We see this in 2 Samuel 11 with David’s lust for Bathsheba, which led to her pregnancy and to David’s arranging for her husband Uriah’s death in battle. We see this in Achan’s desire for silver, gold, and the elegant Babylonian robe as recounted in Joshua 7:20-21. Achan describes the desire of the eyes in the following terms.

Truly I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and this is what I did: when I saw among the spoil a beautiful cloak from Shinar, and 200 shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing 50 shekels, then I coveted them and took them. And see, they are hidden in the earth inside my tent, with the silver underneath.

Bathsheba’s beauty wasn’t the problem. David’s lust was. Neither gold, nor silver, nor fine clothing are sinful in themselves. The problem was in Achan’s own desire for goods which God prohibited Israel from possessing. Achan wanted these things so much that he put the entire nation under God’s curse because of the desire of the eyes.

Let us be clear about this. For John, the cause of worldliness is found within us–not in tobacco plants, or in whiskey bottles. Worldliness is a mindset tied to the unrestrained lust of the flesh. Worldliness is seen in the desire for ill-gotten gain, and in the pride that can go with accumulating much wealth or property. As John goes on to remind us, loving the world is the height of foolishness, because (as he says in verse 17), “and the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” As light comes into the world, and darkness flees, we are given a hint of the day of final judgement. For John, the world, as it lies under the control of the evil one will pass away, because one day Christ will return and then every hint or trace of darkness will flee away in the light of Christ’s coming at the end of the age. What abides forever is the light, and what remains are those who walk in the light, and who abide in Christ as they strive to obey the commandments of God.

What Should We Take With Us?

While our fundamentalist and Reformed fathers were absolutely right to warn us not to love the world, they should not have focused so much upon avoiding certain activities and material things (i.e. cards, tobacco, and alcohol). The motivation was correct, but the method was short-sighted. Instead, they should have told us that worldliness is an attitude of our sinful hearts. Worldliness is not necessarily tied to things outside of us. For John, worldliness is loving the world as it is under control of the evil one. In our day and age, worldliness is the desire for fame, riches, and celebrity. It is the lust for more of everything, and the self indulgent and immediate gratification of every sinful desire.

Our love for the fallen and sinful world around us spontaneously arises within us because we have sinful natures which led us to see everything from the perspective of self, because we see things (which may be good in themselves) and then desire them even when we shouldn’t (the desire of the eyes), or when we forget our dependence upon God because we have so many possessions, (the pride of possessions). Closing the bars, boycotting the tobacco companies, avoiding dancing, card-playing, and the theater, will not keep us from being worldly. In fact, we can give up all of these things all the while becoming more worldly than ever.

The only thing which can keeping us from loving the world more than our heavenly Father is to walk in the light of God’s word, because that word of life constantly exposes the darkness, and it repeatedly points us back to that one in whom the Father has revealed his love for us, the word of life manifest in the flesh. We fight worldliness by thinking and acting like Christians–what John calls “walking in the light.” This entails believing the right things (indicatives), and obeying the commandments of God (imperatives). As John has made plain, all of this centers around a flesh and blood Savior, who turns aside God’s wrath, who is the very embodiment of what it means to love God and neighbor, and who is now in heaven interceding before us. There is nothing secret in any of this, and those who claim to know the secret principles of life have nothing to say to any of us.

John is crystal clear here. “Do not love the world, for the world is passing away.” When all is said and done, the only things that will remain are those things created and sustained by Jesus Christ, the word of life manifest in the flesh, who is the light of the world. The only way not to love the world, is to walk in the light of the Savior, who is the word of God manifest in the flesh.

________________________________

[1] See the discussion in, Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, 68-71.

[2] Stott, The Epistles of John, 101, Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 70.

[3] Stott, The Epistles of John, 101. Cf. S. M. Baugh, A First John Reader: Intermediate Greek Reading Notes and Grammar (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1999), 29.

[4] Contra Stott, I take John to be referring to Jesus. Cf. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 73-74.

[5] S. M. Baugh, A First John Reader, 30; John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John (Part Two) and The First Epistle of John, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 243.

[6] Stott, The Epistles of John, 103.

[7] Stott, The Epistles of John, 103, Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, 84.

[8] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 6.

[9] Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, (Eerdmans, 1931), 73.

I recently wrote a short piece for Ligonier entitled, “Who Was Peter?”

Article 14: God’s Use of Means in Perseverance

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

___________________________________

As the Canons point out, thankfully, the merciful God who chooses to save a multitude of those fallen in Adam so vast they cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9) does not begin the process of salvation and then give up on those who commit serious sins or who, for a time, fall into unbelief (Romans 8:28–30; 1 John 1:5–2:2). God ensures that all those whom he has chosen to save will persevere unto the end of their lives in faith—despite serious or careless sins. Although God does not promise to undo the consequences we bring upon ourselves through such acts, Jesus does promise that he will indeed save all those given to him by the Father (John 6:37–40; John 10:27–30). Paul concurs (Romans 8:31–38).

As we have seen in the previous articles under this head of doctrine, the opponents of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (the Dutch Arminians, Roman Catholics, and later Wesleyan Arminians) held that such a view makes people indifferent to their sins and offers a false sense of security, leaving little, if any, basis for holy living. Grounding the Christian life in the fear of punishment and the hope of reward, these groups are right to see that the Reformed doctrine—grounded in the saving efficacy of God’s grace in the person and work of Jesus Christ—presents a serious challenge to them. Yes, these groups argue that God gives enabling grace to those willing to receive it, but the Reformed have noted that such forms of motivation do not give life to those dead in sin. Indeed, asking someone dead in sin to take the first step toward God is like asking a corpse to take a breath so that it can come to life and take more breaths.

The Reformed contend that once God gives eternal life to those dead in sin—life which Peter identifies as an “imperishable seed” (1 Peter 1:23)—God will not allow such a person (who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit) to perish. If his elect stray, fall into sin, or struggle with doubt, God has provided for them the means through which those whom he has chosen, and for whom Jesus has died, are restored—the Word and the Sacraments—identified here by the authors of the Canons. God calls us to faith through the proclamation of the gospel. He continues to call us and create faith through that same gospel. “Just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises.” God’s Word never returns void (Isaiah 55:11) and accomplishes that which God intends it to do—in this case, returning the straying sheep to the fold.

The saving promises in that gospel are confirmed by the sacraments—the so-called “visible Word.” As covenant signs and seals, the sacraments confirm and ratify the promises God makes to us in his Word. We cannot see the Holy Spirit do his invisible work of regeneration, but we can see him unite us to Christ in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:4–6) and seal us unto the day of redemption in the waters of baptism. And since Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried long ago, the same promises he made to his disciples are presented anew in the bread and wine (which by faith we take to be the body and blood of Christ), anticipating the great marriage supper of Christ the Lamb (Revelation 19:6–9).

God is gracious from beginning to end. We need not fear his wrath, nor strive to earn his favor. Jesus bore the wrath we deserve, and by providing us with a justifying righteousness, he earned for us a mansion in heaven. And like a marathon runner who is given a cup of refreshing water as they run, so too the sacraments refresh and renew us along the way.

Here’s their website and sign-up info: Redeemer Reformed Church Plant in Reno

Here’s their distinctives and mission

We are ordinary people—sinners rescued by God’s sovereign grace—called together to worship, grow, and serve under the lordship of Christ. Our desire is simple: to be a faithful Reformed church in Reno that glorifies God, obeys His Word, and joyfully proclaims the good news of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Whether you are new to the Reformed faith or have been shaped by it for years, if you long for:

• God-centered worship that is biblical, reverent, and joyful,

• Faithful preaching that expounds all of Scripture and applies the gospel to daily life,

• Covenant church where families and individuals are discipled together,

• Confessional integrity grounded in the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort,

…you are exactly the kind of person we are praying God will bring to this core group.

Episode Synopsis:

I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first? I gave you a hint about the good news in the previous episode, in which we took a look at the thesis statement of Romans—Romans 1:16–17. The next time you'll hear good news from Paul—and it is really good news—is when we get to Romans 3:21, which is still a number of episodes down the road. As will become clear, the good news of the gospel must be seen against the backdrop of human sin and guilt before the holy God. Since the vast majority of our contemporaries think that people are basically good and have the ability, if not the desire, to find favor with God, it is important to notice that Paul sees things much differently.

Which is why the bad news is really bad, and why the good news makes no sense apart from the bad. The entire human race is estranged from God by nature and by choice. When Paul is finished with his indictment of the human race—both Jew and Gentile—there is no one left standing. The wrath of God is being revealed against all those who suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness. Because unbelievers inevitably engage in this act of suppressing the truth about God, he gives them over to their lusts and passions so that things run their course and leave such people without excuse. Because all people know that there is a God, but refuse to worship and serve him, they demonstrate that their thinking is futile and their hearts are hardened. And they dare not stand before him on judgment day and make appeal to their goodness, character, good works, or ignorance of the truth.

Paul is clear that the Psalmist is absolutely right to affirm, “The fool has said in their heart, `There is no God.’” As those made in the image of God, he has made us to be creatures well fitted for the world which he also created. We are designed for this world and all of its beauties, joys, and pleasures. This is what makes the suppression of the truth about him so foolish. God has revealed himself to all people—that he is, that he is holy, and that we owe him our every breath. So, when our race fell in Adam, we became a race of rebels who worship and serve created things rather than the Creator. And as Paul is about to explain, the wrath of God is being revealed—not against the innocent who don't know better, but against a race of rebels who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. We live as though none of this were true, or we create a god who blesses our rebellion. But there is a tsunami on the horizon, and it is heading our way.

Show Notes:

• This is a shorter episode than usual, in part, because I decided to split a long episode into two halves, and because it was hot and muggy (you can’t run the AC when recording). I also knew I was leaving town for my annual trek to the Eastern Sierras. So, in preparing a shorter episode earlier there will be no interruption in the Blessed Hope schedule as I initially mentioned.

• My neighbor needs to take advantage of one of those discount AC check-up advertisements, because his AC compressor sounds like an alien space ship landing in his yard. I was able to edit most of the compressor noise out of this episode.

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

Mike Horton on “Without Excuse”

Ligon Duncan on “Why We Are Without Excuse”

R. C. Sproul on “Suppressing the Truth” (audio)

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)

God Is Light

The contrast between Christianity and false religion is as apparent as the contrast between light and darkness. John the Apostle must deal with certain men who had departed from the faith and who were now denying that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. To expose their errors, John uses a simple contrast. God is light. Darkness cannot exist in his presence, because light casts out darkness. Since Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, Jesus is that light which has come into the world. That light which gives life, enables God’s people to walk in the light, even as Jesus is the manifestation of the light. And since light casts out darkness, so too Christ’s coming in the flesh means that wherever the word of life is proclaimed, darkness passes away.

How We Demonstrate That We Walk In the Light

As we make our way through the second chapter of John’s first epistle, in this section of John’s first letter (verses 1:5-2:29), John describes four ways in which Christians demonstrate that they are walking in the light. The first of these four conditions is the necessity of repenting of our sin. We considered this in the previous installment as we made our way through 1 John 1:5-2:2. The second condition mentioned by John–that Christians must be obedient to God’s commandments–is found in verses 2:3-11. This is our topic in this exposition. The third condition is spelled out in verses 12-17. John says that Christians must reject all appearance of worldliness, which refers to both the lusts of the flesh and the desires of the eyes. The fourth condition–that we must hold fast to the truth in the presence of antichrists–is spelled out in the balance of the chapter (verses 18-29). According to John, these things are characteristic of all those who live in the light of the word manifest in the flesh.

Proto-Gnosticism, False Doctrine, and Apostasy

Throughout his epistles, John is dealing with an early form of Gnosticism, which contends that a dualism exists between spirit (good) and matter (which is evil). In this dualistic scheme of things, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is an impossibility because God (who is pure spirit) could not in any sense be manifest in human flesh (because flesh is material, and therefore evil). This is why John opens this epistle with the emphatic declaration that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. John has seen Jesus, heard Jesus, and even touched Jesus. The good news (of the gospel) is that Jesus has come as a flesh and blood Savior.

But those whom John describes as men “who went out from us” were denying that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh–one of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. In order to explain Jesus’s earthly ministry, these false teachers were forced to contend that while Jesus was fully God, he only took the form (or appeared) as a man. In other words, while fully divine, Jesus was some sort of phantom or apparition, and was not truly human (no flesh, blood, or bones). This is the heresy of docetism. The whole point of Jesus being God manifest in the flesh is that he came to offer himself up as a propitiation for our sins. A propitiation is a sacrifice which turns aside God’s wrath through the shedding of real blood, and through a truly broken body. But a docetic Jesus cannot make such a sacrifice. A phantom Jesus cannot shed real blood. Furthermore, a Jesus who only appears in human form cannot obey the law of God so as to fulfill all righteousness. The docetic Jesus cannot save flesh and blood sinners. John calls those who teach such a thing, “antichrists.”

Another important trait of this early Gnosticism is the idea that enlightenment comes to only a few who discipline themselves to learn the secret insights into the teachings of Jesus, not made public to everyone. Apparently, such esoteric knowledge about Jesus was being taught by those who had departed from the faith. Given John’s focus upon both the death of Christ (who is God manifest in the flesh) and his present advocacy for us in heaven, it is clear that the gospel is grounded in historic and very public events–not some sort of “secret knowledge.” This is why those for whom Christ died must walk in the light. Light casts out darkness. And light can be easily observed.

The Nature of Their Error

Given the series of sharp contrasts John sets upon in 1 John 1:6-2:1 (which we discussed last time), we can be very sure that some sort of antinomianism was being taught by these false teachers mentioned by the apostle. More than likely those who had departed from the faith were teaching that since Jesus had come bringing new revelation regarding the purposes of God, the old covenant was no longer binding. This means that Christians were no longer bound to obey God’s commandments (the law). No doubt, also present was the idea that the once enlightened people claimed to be able to rise above their sin, hence they saw no need of a flesh and blood Savior. Christianity was transformed from a religion grounded in what God has done in history to save us from our sin, into a religion based upon secret teachings and personal enlightenment. Such a religion is, of course, no longer Christianity.

This explains why in verses 8 and 10 John openly challenges those who see no connection between what they believe and how they live. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (v. 1:8), and then again in verse 10, “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” Not only are those who claim to be without sin self-deceived, even worse, John says they make God out to be a liar. While John is concerned about antinomianism, this also explains the necessity of why those who walk in the light cannot just do what seems right in their own eyes. People who are self-deceived, and who make God out to be a liar, are not in any position whatsoever to teach others about what God does or does not require.

Imperatives Follow John’s Indicatives

So, with that background in mind, we turn to our text, 1 John 2:3-11. Before we look at John’s statement in verse 3, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments,” we need to keep in mind that which John has just stated in verses 1-2. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Throughout this epistle we find direct imperatives that Christians must be obedient to the commandments of God. But we must be very careful not to treat these imperatives apart from John’s equally clear comments (indicatives) that Christ’s death is a propitiation which turns aside God’s wrath toward all of our sins, and that Jesus is presently our advocate before the father in heaven.

John is not some sort of perfectionist–that Christians can cease from all sin. But he is a realist. While he gives us this exhortation so that we will not sin (2:1), at the same time he says “but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” John fully expects that those who are Christ’s will walk in the light, unlike the false teachers who live in darkness. But the apostle establishes the truth of what Jesus does for his people–dying for them, and interceding for them–before telling them to obey the commandments of the Lord.

This is the classic distinction between the indicative mood (a statement of fact) and the imperative mood (a command). It is only after reminding us of what Christ has done for us (indicative), that John tells us what we are to do (keep God’s commandments) because Christ has died for us, and is presently making intercession for us. Only those who are already Christ’s will strive to obey God’s law. Only Christians worry about whether or not they have been obedient enough. A Christian walks in the light, and light exposes that which is hidden–namely our sin. A non-Christian who walks in darkness never even has this struggle with sin and obedience. Why? Because they cannot see (in the light of God’s word) how sinful they truly are.

Why Obeying the Commandments Matters

As for verse 3 itself, John is very direct–those who walk in the light (those for whom Christ has died and now intercedes) are to keep God’s commandments. Striving to obey God’s law is one of the sure tests by which we know we are Christians. By way of contrast, people who walk in darkness have no interest in obeying God’s commandments. The reason why John speaks about the need to obey the commandments in the way that he does, flows directly out of the error with which he is dealing.[1] People who had been taken in by docetic heresy were inclined to believe that what mattered was the “soul,” not the body.

As long as the soul was pure, obeying the commandments of God was not important. If people believed that Jesus was a new revelation of God (but not truly human) and that he came to do away with the emphasis upon things physical, then what really matters was gaining knowledge of religious secrets which would set people free from all things worldly (material). This disdain for the flesh (and all things material) is characteristic of these kinds of proto-gnostic sects. This is why those who rejected Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, were often characterized by indifference to things the Bible regards as sinful.

Therefore, it is vital that John point out the obvious difference between walking in the light and living in darkness. Lest we overlook the obvious shot at those stressing “esoteric” or “secret” knowledge, John reminds his readers that through obedience to the commandments, by this we know that we have come to know him. This is the first of 25 times in this epistle when John uses the verb “to know.” Christians “know that we know.”[2] This is because we trust in a true flesh and blood Jesus, whom John has seen, heard, and touched. No doubt, John is taking up the language of his opponents, and using it to demonstrate that our faith is not based upon secret and esoteric teachings (so-called “gnosis”). We know what we know, because God’s commandments were not revealed to a few who gained knowledge of the hidden principles of the universe. No, God came down to Mount Sinai and published his law on two stone commandments which were then enshrined in Israel’s constitution and history–the Sinaitic covenant.

God’s Will Is Revealed

According to the apostle Paul, these same commandments were written upon every human heart (cf. Romans 2:14-15). When they were published on the two stone tablets given to Moses, that which was written upon the heart, was now revealed for all to see and understand. These commandments are the very reflection of God’s holy, loving, and righteous character. As Paul says in Romans 7:12, “so the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” These commandments are known to everyone, they are not hidden. Therefore, when John speaks of God as light, he is surely thinking of these commandments as the revelation of God’s will. And those who are Christ’s will walk in the light of the word made flesh–i.e., they will strive to obey God’s commandments. But never forget that we will strive to obey the commandments only because Christ has already died for us (turning aside God’s wrath) and because he is presently interceding for all his people as our advocate.

Christians (especially those in the Wesleyan-holiness tradition) often go off the rails when they press John by asking him, “is God demanding perfect obedience of us?” John is not speaking about sanctification, or to the question of whether Christians can rise above all sin (perfectionism). John is simply setting out a contrast between Christians (who walk in the light), and those who have departed from the faith (who walk in darkness). Christians know what the light is, because the word has been revealed in history. If they are in Christ, they will strive to walk in that light. But those who chase after secret knowledge and embrace the docetic Jesus, will have no interest in obeying the commandments. They prefer to live in darkness. They love their esoteric secrets more than the word manifest in the flesh.

While John frames his argument in the positive–we know that we know because we obey the commandments–it might help us understand the force of his argument better if we frame it in the negative. Those who walk in darkness do not strive to obey the commandments. Therefore, it is easy to tell who such people are. Despite their claim to be “in the know” they are not interested in God’s law, nor does their conduct comport with what the law requires.[3] John is not telling Christians that they must be perfect. Rather, he is pointing out that the contrast between a Christian and those who have departed from the truth is as obvious as the difference between light and darkness.

Who Has the Truth?

The declaration in verse 3 sets the stage for three traits which should characterize any Christian’s behavior (especially in contrast to those who walk in darkness).[4] The first of these is found in verse 4. “Whoever says `I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” John is not speaking about how one makes progress in the Christian life. He’s simply stating that Christians will strive to keep God’s commandments–those who claim to know God, will seek to obey his commandments.

Those who claim to be Christians (the enlightened ones who have rejected the doctrine that Jesus is God in the flesh) will likewise not be interested in obedience, as much as they will be interested in “secret knowledge.” The one is very public, the other is not. Those who claim to know the deeper truths, and who yet have no concern about obedience to the commandments are liars. They demonstrate by their conduct that they do not know God. Again, John is moving away from the hidden/secret, to the public/concrete. John’s basic point is one of contrast. When we look at someone’s conduct, we can usually see how “enlightened” they truly are. If they are indifferent to the commandments while claiming to be Christians, then they are liars. They walk in darkness.

The second thing that should characterize someone who knows God is that the love of God is perfected in them. Says John in the first part of verse 5, “ but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” Again, it is vital that we catch John’s point. He connects “keeping” (obeying) to God’s word. John’s use of logos (“word”) has a dual reference here–both to the written word (Scripture) and to the word manifest in the flesh (Christ).[5] A Christian who obeys God’s word is obeying a published document, and God manifest in the flesh. Such a person’s conduct is plain for all to see, and there is absolutely nothing hidden or esoteric about any of this.

John also says that God’s love is perfected (or completed) in those who obey God’s word. I take this to mean that God’s love for us is completed when those for whom Christ has died, and for whom he intercedes, manifest God’s electing love and grace toward them through their own personal obedience to the commandments.[6] In other words, God’s eternal love toward sinners–that which motivated him to send Christ to suffer and die for us, and then to serve as our advocate, is made complete through our love of God (out of gratitude) because of that which Christ has done for us. Our love of/toward God is the manifestation of God’s prior love for us. This is John’s point in 1 John 4:10. “This is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” In this epistle, John says that our love for God is perfected through our obedience to his commandments. John’s stress falls upon that which we do, not any secret, esoteric “knowledge” we might possess.

The Way We Walk

In the latter part of verse 5 and in verse 6, John speaks of the third thing which should characterize all Christians. “By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” Again, John pushes his reader back to their own certainty in Christ–that which they know because the word of life has been manifest in the flesh. John’s readers know this to be true, because out of love for God, they strive to obey his commandments. Because they walk in the light, just as Jesus walked, they know that they are in Christ, and that they abide in him.

“Abiding” is a major theme in John’s Gospel and is discussed in John 15. Not only does John speak of the necessity of “abiding in Christ,” John also reminds us how this is possible while we remain sinners. “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” (John 15:16). God has chosen those whom he will save, and those whom he has chosen, will abide. They will bear fruit. John’s point here (in the context of refuting proto-Gnosticism) is that those who are Christ’s will walk in Christ’s light, i.e., they will strive to obey God’s commandments. Why? Because God chose them, Christ died for them, and now he intercedes for them.

In verses 7-11 John fleshes out his point with more specifics. If Christians are to obey the commandments of God, those commandments can be summarized by the two tables of the law, love of God and love of neighbor. Believers are called to walk in the light as Christ is in the light. Therefore, believers must love their brothers and sisters in Christ. The importance of this should be clear to those to whom John is writing, as they have witnessed so-called brothers and sisters departing from the faith out of the misguided quest for “knowledge.” But those who walk in the light, will follow the example of Christ, and love their brothers and sisters, for whom Christ died, and for whom he is now interceding.

The New Commandment

John speaks affectionately to his audience in verse 7 as his beloved (or dear friends). “Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.” John has nothing new to reveal to his reader–in this he distinguishes himself from those false teachers whose primary claim was that they had all kinds of new doctrines and commandments. John is clearly speaking of the law, which his readers (especially those Jewish Christians in the congregation) had from the beginning. God gave the law to Adam in Eden, it is written on the hearts of everyone. Nothing new here at all. That law teaches us that we must love God and neighbor–very mundane and basic stuff. Not nearly as exciting as some new and secret revelation about the hidden mysteries of the universe. Just love God and your neighbor.

And yet in verse 8, John speaks of a new command. “At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” John is of course referring to Jesus’s words as recorded in John 13:34. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” John’s point is that Jesus commanded nothing new when he told us to love one another. But as the author of the law, Jesus wanted to ensure that his disciples understood that the decalogue was itself founded upon love of God and love of neighbor (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18).[7]

In fact, Jesus was the fulfillment of the command to love God and neighbor, as demonstrated through his own obedience to God, his love of neighbor, and through his sacrificial death, in which he voluntarily laid down his life for his own people. In Jesus we see the very embodiment of this commandment. The commandment to love God and neighbor is old, being enshrined in the law. With the coming of Christ, that commandment is made new, in the sense that Jesus alone fulfills that commandment, indeed embodies it. That is why John can say, that the obedience of Jesus (that which is “true in him”) is likewise seen in those who walk in the light. Those who have been given life by the word made flesh, will in turn love their brothers and sisters, even as Jesus has loved them. In this, the law is fulfilled and God’s work in us is perfected.

The Darkness Is Fading

When John speaks of darkness passing away because the true light is already shining, he’s speaking in eschatological terms. This present age is characterized by darkness. This world (this age) is destined to perish. Darkness passes away because Jesus is the true light of the age to come. His coming (as the truth) exposes error. His coming reminds us that this world (the darkness) is passing away. His coming is the very embodiment of love, and just as light casts out darkness, so too the coming of Jesus casts out hate. Everything associated with the darkness of this age will pass away.

John elaborates upon this a bit more in verses 9-11.

Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Light and love, darkness and hatred, go hand in hand. Those in Christ are characterized by love and truth. Those in darkness are characterized by hatred and ignorance of the things of God. Those who walk in light will love their brothers and sisters. Those in darkness will not. Those who walk in the light of God’s word will not stumble. But those who walk in darkness–as depicted in Isaiah 6:9-10–not only will hate those who see in Jesus the word manifest in the flesh, but they will have no idea of where they are headed. As Isaiah says, they cannot understand, they are dull, and they are blind. Because they walk in darkness, John says, they have become blind to the truth. They may claim to have knowledge, but they are ignorant about those things which God has revealed. And everyone can see it but them. “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’”

The Take-Away

John opened this epistle by reminding his readers that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. John knows this to be true because he has heard Jesus preach, seen him perform miracles, and has even touched him with his hands. John has pointed out that those who deny that they are sinful are self-deceived and make God out to be a liar. Although John has written this epistle “so that we will not sin,” John knows that we will. This is why he reminds us that Jesus came in the flesh to offer up himself as a propitiation for our sins, as well as serve as our advocate in heaven. All of these things require a flesh and blood Savior (the word of life manifest in the flesh), not a docetic Jesus who simply appears in human form.

Since the false teachers were claiming to be without sin and were indifferent to the commandments of God, John’s response to this false teaching is to simply contrast true Christians with those who have embraced the phantom Jesus of the antichrist. The contrast between the two groups is as apparent as the contrast between light and darkness. Those who are Christ’s will walk in the light–they will obey God’s commandments and love their brothers and sisters in Christ. Those who are not Christ’s will manifest darkness and hatred. This is how we know what we know. There is nothing secret about this. It is all out in the open. God has made his will perfectly clear in his word and through the person of his son. Jesus is God come in the flesh. He has suffered and died for us, and serves as our advocate in heaven.

Christianity is a religion of flesh and blood, a religion of obeying published commandments, and loving our brothers and sisters in the rub of daily life. Christianity is a religion of law and gospel, properly balanced indicatives (what God has done for us) and imperatives (what we must do because we are Christ’s). Christianity is not a religion of secrets or techniques. No, Christianity is a religion of light, not things hidden in darkness. And whenever God’s light comes into the world, through the person and work of Jesus Christ, the darkness is passing away before our very eyes.

_________________________________________

[1] Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, xxiii-xxiv, 43.

[2] Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, 44-45.

[3] Stott, The Letters of John, 94-95.

[4] Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, 46.

[5] See the discussion in; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 48.

[6] Stott, The Letters of John, 97.

[7] Stott, The Letters of John, 98.

I needed a new glamour photo for the blog and for those instances when I am a guest on someone else’s podcast and they need a current image of me. I’ve recently lost 25 lbs in response to the onset of old man health issues—I am fine, just a bit more svelte. Not only did I need new pants (suspenders are out), but I needed a picture which actually looks like the new me.

I was recently a guest on the Abiding Grace Radio’s (AGR) live podcast recording at Christ Reformed Church (May 1, 2026), in which we discussed Israel and the Antichrist. We had a blast! The AGR radio program is now serializing that live recording, and in the first installment used an old White Horse Inn publicity photo which still appears in Google photo searches. I was badly in need of a haircut when that picture was taken, and admittedly, I look pretty scruffy. This never worked as a glamour photo . . .

So, when the AGR folks prepared their second installment for that series, I got a kick out of the fact that they too must have thought I needed “spiffing up” and came up with an AI image of me making me look ten years younger than I am. But I would never wear that tie with a striped shirt! I’m an old school oxford-cloth, button down collar, sort of guy. And isn’t it a bit ironic that in an episode in which we talked about the Antichrist, and briefly touched on AI, that an AI image of me appears.

The first time I was AI’d was as a guest for a Spanish Language podcast several years ago. The AI image does sort of look like me, but is kinda creepy—as if I were my own younger brother if I had one.

But I shouldn’t complain too much. Someone tried to contemporize B. B. Warfield, giving him a modern appearance. But he looks more like a hipster megachurch pastor than the “Lion of Princeton.”

Oh, the perils of AI and the glamour photo . . .

Article 13: Assurance No Inducement to Carelessness

Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.

____________________________________________

Given the number of articles under the Fifth Point of Doctrine addressing the matter of assurance of one’s salvation actually leading to godliness rather than carelessness or indifference to godly living, it is clear that this was a charge frequently raised by the Dutch Arminians (as well as Rome).

The reality is that Christians can and do fall into serious sin—a point acknowledged in previous articles. But in the case of God’s elect, if and when they fall into serious sin, they are eventually restored to God’s favor, even if the consequences of their sin remain a factor in their lives. Since this is the case, those who are restored find themselves taking greater care not to allow such a thing to happen again, as well as possessing a deeper understanding of the grace and mercy of God toward his wayward sheep.

There are a number of biblical cases in which this is evident. In Psalm 51, for example, David cries out for forgiveness, desiring to have his transgressions blotted out (v. 1) and to be washed and cleansed of his sins (v. 2). His sin was exposed by Nathan the prophet after David arranged for the death of Bathsheba’s husband. His sin is before him (v. 3), he acknowledges that he has done evil in God’s sight (v. 4), and he asks for a clean heart (v. 10), praying not to be cast away, nor have the Holy Spirit taken away. Throughout the Psalm, David prays for full restoration before God, the joy of his salvation restored, an increase of wisdom, and to be an example to others. Article Thirteen is, in effect, a summary of Psalm 51—the perfect illustration of what the Canons describe as “a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance,” and to come to know again “his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.”

Much the same can be said of the apostle Peter. After Jesus predicted his coming death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19; Matthew 26:1-2), it was Peter who sought to change our Lord’s mind, only to be sternly rebuked by Jesus. Jesus turned to Peter and said, “get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matthew 16:23). And it was Peter who was adamant that he would never deny Jesus, only to lose his nerve and do so three times after Jesus predicted that this would happen (Mark 14:29-31). Therefore, it was an act of grace and kindness that Jesus made one of his first post-resurrection appearances to Peter, assuring him of forgiveness and restoration (Luke 24:33-34; John 21:15-25).

At Pentecost, we learn Peter was filled with the Spirit and transformed into a bold preacher of the gospel—starting with his famous Pentecost sermon in the temple courts, as recounted in Acts 2:14-21. Some three thousand people were converted that day (Acts 2:41). Peter continued preaching in Jerusalem, with many people healed and demons cast out as a manifestation of the advancing kingdom of God (Acts 3-4).

When Paul is forced to rebuke the Corinthians (as recounted in 2 Corinthians 7:8-12), he tells them,

For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God.

According to Paul, godly sorrow produces repentance, longing, and zeal—the very point being made by the authors in article thirteen.

Those who reject the confessional Protestant focus on the assurance of one's salvation—such as the Arminians and the Roman Catholic Church—do so because they view the primary motivation for Christian living as the fear of punishment and the hope of reward. The assurance of one’s salvation flies in the face of such motivation, instead grounding Christian living in gratitude for all that God has done on the sinner’s behalf—the saving merits of Jesus Christ received through faith alone, which provide an unshakable footing for the Christian life.

Episode Synopsis:

Paul is eager to come to Rome to preach the gospel. These words have long been familiar to Christians, and we understand Paul’s sentiment. Yet, in Paul’s day, preaching the gospel was an absolutely scandalous message. The gospel is centered on the cross of Jesus Christ. For us, a cross is a well-known Christian symbol. But for those in Paul’s day, the cross was a sign of shame and denigration. It was something people abhorred and would not speak about. The noted Roman statesman and orator Cicero spoke of the cross as so horrible that Roman citizens should never be subject to such a thing, and should never even entertain the thought of such a horrible manner of death, much less speak of it. So why would Paul be eager to preach such a message if it was likely to repulse and offend people, rather than draw or attract them?

Paul knows that this gospel—centered in the cross of Jesus Christ—is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. God uses this scandalous message to call his people unto himself, create faith, and grant them eternal life. As Paul tells the Romans, the gospel was first preached to Jews in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, and then through recounting the events associated with the messianic mission of Jesus Christ, which culminated in his suffering and death upon a Roman cross. When the crucified Jesus was raised from the dead three days after his crucifixion, God demonstrated his power—which is of a different kind and far greater than all the military might of Rome. Jesus is truly Lord—not Caesar nor any of the Roman gods. So, when Paul says he desires to come to Rome to preach this message, he is trusting the power of God to do what is impossible for sinful humans: to be given new life, the forgiveness of sins, and to be counted as righteous before God.

Paul is also eager to preach the gospel because in it the righteousness of God is revealed. Sinful men and women can be reckoned or credited as righteous by trusting in the crucified and risen Savior proclaimed by Paul. No amount of sorrow or tears, no enlightened teacher or guru, and no amount of good works can grant this righteous status to sinful people. The only proper response to Paul’s gospel is the empty hands of faith—the reception of this free gift of a perfect and faultless righteousness that is found in the gospel. This is why Paul is eager to come to Rome and preach this scandalous message.

Show Notes:

• A beautiful morning in So Cal when the episode was recorded, with surprisingly few interruptions from airplanes (2). No barking dogs, cawing crows, helicopters, trash trucks, sirens, the neighbor’s air conditioning, etc., etc.

• There will be a short break at the Riddleblog anf Blessed Hope Podcast—the mountains are calling

• My voice sounds a bit thin—allergies.

• As mentioned, Cranfield’s comments are worth repeating:

“It (faith) is not a qualification which some men already possess in themselves so that the gospel, when it comes to them, finds them eligible to receive its benefits. Faith, in the sense in which the term is used here, can exist only as a response to the gospel (or its OT foreshadowing). And it is also wrongly conceived, if it is thought of as being, as a man’s response to the gospel, a contribution from his side which, by fulfilling a condition imposed by God, enables the gospel to be unto salvation for him. In that case, faith would itself be in the last resort a human meritorious work, a man’s establishment of his own claim on God by virtue of something in himself. But it is of the very essence of faith, as Paul understands it, that it opposed to all human deserving, all human establishing of claims on God (cf., e.g., 3.20-22, 28; 4.2-5; 9:32; Gal 2.16; 3.2, 5). For Paul man’s salvation is altogether -- not almost altogether -- God’s work; and the faith spoken of here is the openness to the gospel which God Himself creates, the human response of surrender to the judgement and unmerited mercy of God which God Himself brings about -- God who not only directs the message to the hearer but also Himself lays open the hearer’s heart to the message. And yet this faith, as God’s work in a man, is in a real sense more truly and fully the man’s own personal decision than anything which he himself does of himself; for it is the expression of the freedom restored to him -- the freedom to obey God. But it is not till chapter eight that this secret of faith is revealed.” (Cranfield, Commentary on Romans, I.90).

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

Paul Helm on covenant faithfulness and N. T. Wright

Louis Berkhof on God’s Righteousness

Tom Schreiner on the forensic character of God’s righteousness

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:

• The mountains are calling. There will be a brief interruption of the Riddleblog and Season Five of the Blessed Hope Podcast on the Book of Romans

Thinking Out Loud:

• No to Türkiye—it is “Turkey.” No to Mumbai—it is “Bombay.” No to the “Gulf of America.” It is the “Gulf of Mexico”

• I heard one political commentator make the point that the biggest ideological divide in America today might just be between the political class (those who are super on-line, left and/or right tribalists) and the rest of America who pay little or no attention to political in-fighting until immediately before elections, and even then they usually pay no mind to the political class. The commentator might just be right

• Why do professional sports leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL) feel the need to promote Pride night? This certainly generates more public ill-will than ticket sales

• And why not celebrate Swiss night? The players could all wear lederhosen, and alpenhorns could be used for the national anthem. Stadiums could sell some great cheese and chocolate at the concession stands. Instead of Bobble head dolls, they could sell Swatches with the player’s faces. All the fans would be neutral and could suck on a Riccola cough drop if they get hoarse from celebrating their neutrality. I am an oppressed minority!

• The late State Department official John Negroponte once made the sarcastic comment after Richard Nixon’s 1972 Christmas bombing campaign in North Vietnam—“We bombed them into accepting our concessions.” I hope Trump’s efforts in Iran don’t end the same way

• An old friend and I were recently discussing our favorite rock concerts we attended back in the day. We didn’t know each other at the time, but we were both at the Hollywood Palladium in November of 1973 to see Robin Trower and Wishbone Ash. They were meh . . . But the as of then unknown opening band absolutely stole the show—that little ole band from Texas, ZZ Top. Best 45 minutes of blues rock/boogie I ever saw in person

• We also agreed that the worst concert we ever saw (we both there and still didn’t know each other yet) was Deep Purple in Long Beach in April of 1973. Richie Blackmore was in a snit (what else was new), and someone threw a cherry bomb at the band during their set. When it went off over their heads, the band was furious and stormed off—who can blame them? They came back after a long wait, played three songs half-heartedly, and that was it. Huge disappointment

Currently Reading and Thoroughly Enjoying!

I heard Allen Guelzo speak about this project a year or so ago—a two volume set of beautifully illustrated volumes covering the intellectual and cultural of history of the Western Tradition. They are coffee table books, something you pick up and browse through. They are heavy and not the sort of volume you’ll pick up and read from cover to cover. But they are volumes to which you’ll be drawn to pick up again and again just to browse through them and tackle a topic or two. They are magnificent with great narrative text, illustrations, and well-chosen excerpts from primary sources.

The Publisher’s blurb about volume one:

Where do the threads that form the Western tradition originate, and how were they woven together over the two and a half millennia before 1500? What are the sources of our modern ideas about science, freedom, equality, law, good government, and virtue? These are the questions explored in The Golden Thread, Volume I: The Ancient World and Christendom, written by James Hankins.

The story begins with the seminal culture of the classical Greeks and moves through the Hellenization of the east following the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hankins then narrates the rise and dominance of Rome and the fusion of Greco-Roman and Judea-Christian cultures in the Christian empire of the fourth century AD. The volume follows the history of Christendom from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, charts its centuries-long rivalry with the Islamic world, and culminates in the emergence of European civilization in the Middle Age and Renaissance. 

Volume I Examines how the foundations were laid for the West's political and economic dominance in the modern era, illuminating the deep roots of the ideas, arts, and institutions that continue to shape our world.

You can purchase it here

The Publisher’s Blurb About Volume Two:

With the Renaissance in Europe, the Western world experienced a long series of cataclysmic events that still reverberate in modern society. Written by Allan C. Guelzo, The Golden Thread, Volume II: The Modern and Contemporary West begins in 1500, when the Protestant Reformation brought an end of the Roman Catholic Church's dominance over European states. It then turns to the rise of imperial powers that swiftly circled the globe, and to the explosion of intellectual, economic, and technological advancements sparked by the Enlightenment. 

These were moments of flourishing in Western civilization, but also moments of uncertainty, as they portended the violent political upheavals that shook continental Europe and the Americas during the American, French and Bolivarian Revolutions as well as the Napoleonic Wars. The Industrial Revolution, the Romantic revolt against the Enlightenment, and a second wave of scientific advancement in the nineteenth century challenged any attempt to restore the classical unity of the West. A radically redrawn world emerged from these developments, one that was ill-prepared for the colossal physical and moral shocks of the First and Second World Wars.

In its closing chapters, Guelzo explores how Western civilization has, in our own time, been simultaneously challenged by secular totalitarianism and yet remained remarkably resilient laying the foundations for material prosperity around the globe. Through the paradoxes of the twentieth century, The Golden Thread engages with the most significant questions facing the West today.

You can buy it here

These volumes ain’t cheap, but I find myself looking through them on a regular basis and getting lost in whatever section I’m reading.

Recommended Links:

• Allen Guelzo on The Life and significance of Abraham Lincoln (MP3) Magnificent!

• Michael Horton, Miles Smith IV, and Darryl Hart on the question “was America Founded as a Christian nation?” Outstanding

• Great essay from my friend and old colleague, Andrew Compton. How Did Noah Point to Christ?

• Reformed Dogmatika has published case files from the Genevan Consistory in the days of Calvin. The cases are fascinating, dispel the rumors about a Genevan “theocracy,” and remind us that people or their problems haven’t changed much since the 1560s

A Bit of Fun:

• No pair of sunglasses is worth falling into this

• I showed this to my wife—the look on her face . . . She’d have died if this happened to her—Brave newscaster

• For the life of me, I don’t know how he can do it, or why he’d want to—Joey Chestnut wins again

• As if you could tell there was a new intestinal problem at Taco Bell

• The Dutch have lost it

• Celebrity culture at its worst

• When the bear can’t make it to the woods in time

• LA Mayor Karen Bass is the Lord of the flies

• I’d hate to have this guy for a neighbor—the town crier

• Scientist working on teleporting disappears. There might be a simple explanation . . .

• The latest Nigerian on-line scam—driveway theft

Previous Musings:

June Musings (6/03/2026)

Video:

UP’s beast of a locomotive—Number 4014, “Big Boy”—leaves Scranton, Pennsylvania. The video is like a Jurassic Park of steam locomotives. Every train you had as a kid makes an appearance, with huge crowds cheering along the route. And that whistle . . . “I’m here!” Great stuff!